Commons Sitting of 16 May 1907

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Mitcham and Wimbledon District Gas Bill. Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Collooney, Ballina, and Belmullet Railways and Piers Bill (King's consent signified). Bill read the third time, and passed.
Folkestone, Sandgate, and Hythe Tramways [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
West Yorkshire Tramways Bill [Lords.] To be read a third time upon Thursday next.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13) Bill, "to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Norwich, and the counties of London and Middlesex," presented by Dr. Macnamara; supported by Mr. Burns; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 205.]
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill, "to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Crediton, Portsmouth, and the Waltham Joint Hospital District," presented by Dr. Macnamara; supported by Mr. Burns; read the first
1076
time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 206.]
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill, "to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under The Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Mine head and Dunster, Rhymney Valley (Gelligaer, Mynyddislwyn, and Bedwellty), and St. Albans and District," presented by Mr. Lloyd-George; supported by Mr. Kearley; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 207.]
Armagh Urban District Council Bill. Reported from the Police and Sanitary Committee, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to, Marriages Provisional Order Bill; Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill; North East London Railway Bill; London and North-Western Railway (Superannuation Fund) Bill; Plymouth and North Devon Direct Railway (Abandonment) Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to repeal Section 57 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, and part of Section 7 of The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887, relating to the employment of women and children." [Employment of Women Bill [Lords].]
Also, a Bill intituled, "An Act for amending the Law relating to the administration of oaths for the purpose of proceedings in Prize Courts." [Prize Courts Bill [Lords].]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1900." [Companies Bill [Lords].]

PETITIONS.
  ADVERTISEMENTS' REGULATION BILL.
  Petition from St. Marylebone, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions, for adulteration; from Arbroath; and Forfar; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against; from Ardwick; Kennington Park; Pimlico; Winchester; and Worthing; to lie upon the Table.
  MUNICIPAL MILK DEPOTS BILL.
  Petition from St. Marylebone, against; to lie upon the Table.
  PAUPER LUNATICS (COST OF MAINTENANCE).
  Petitions for legislation; from Long Ashton; and Plymouth; to lie upon the Table.
  POLICE SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Leith, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF WHISKY BILL.
  Petition from St. Marylebone, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TRUST INVESTMENT BILL.
  Petition of the Law Society of the United Kingdom, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CASE OF GEORGE EDALJI.
  Copy presented, of Papers relating to the ease of George Edalji [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOUR DAY FOR MINERS).
  Copy presented, of Final Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to enquire into the probable economic effect of a limit of Eight Hours to the working day of Coal Miners, together with Report, Minutes of Evidence, and Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  INSPECTORS OF MINES.
  Return Presented, relative thereto [Address 27th March; Mr. Summerbell]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 157.]
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF LANCASTER).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the County of Lancaster, redividing the Darwen Parliamentary Division into convenient Polling Districts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF DURHAM).
  Copy presented, of Order made by
  1078
  the Council of the County of Durham, altering certain Polling Districts in the South-Eastern and Houghton-le-Spring Parliamentary Divisions [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copies presented, of Orders made by the Council of the Borough of Accrington, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the Hours of Closing for certain classes of Shops within the Borough [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL CONFERENCE, 1907.
  Copy presented, of Published Proceedings and Précis of the Colonial Conference, 30th April to 14th May, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVAL SAVINGS BANKS.
  Account presented, of Deposits in Naval Savings Banks, and the payments thereof, and the interest thereon, &c, during the financial year 1905–6 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 158.]
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS SECURITIES.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 10th April; Mr. Runciman]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 159.]
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Copy presented, of Annual Report of Proceedings under the Tithe Acts, Copyhold Act,1894, Inclosure Acts, and other Acts for the year 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Report, Annual Series, No. 3791 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  RENTS AND ROYALTIES ARISING FROM MINES UNDER THE SEA.
  Return ordered, "showing (1) the companies or persons in the county of Cumberland holding leases from the Crown to mine under the sea; (2) the dates of such leases being made; (3) the rate of Rent or Royalty paid under each lease; and (4) the amount annually accruing to the Crown under each lease."—(Mr. George Roberts.)
  STEAMSHIP SUBSIDIES.
  Return ordered, "of all sums payable out of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom in the year 1906–7 in respect of Steamship Subsidies, showing (a) the total amount of the Subsidies; (b) the payments out of the Exchequer; and (c) the dates at which the contracts providing for the Subsidies begin and end, the services stipulated to be performed, and the revenue, if any, collected in connection with these services and either paid into the Exchequer or treated as an Appropriation - in - Aid."—(Mr. Harold Cox.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Suggested Remission of Sentence on Stoker Moody.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether having regard to the fact that the incident of the disturbances at the Naval Barracks at Portsmouth, which resulted in the trial by court martial, conviction, and sentence to lengthened terms of imprisonment of Stoker Moody and his comrades, has left no permanently injurious effects, the Admiralty will consider the advisability of remitting or curtailing the remaining period of the punishment of these men.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The Board of Admiralty will in due course consider the advisability of the proceeding suggested by my hon. friend.

  English Government Departments Exercising Powers in Ireland.
  MR. GEORGE CLARK: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant a Return giving the names of Government Departments or authorities in England which may now exercise powers in or in relation to Ireland, and also a list of such powers.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) If the hon. Member should see fit to move for a Return giving the names of the Departments referred to I will offer no objection to its being granted. I could not, however, undertake to give a list of the various powers which have been conferred on these Departments by numerous Acts of Parliament.

  Distribution of Untenanted Land on the Mount Shannon Estate.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now give the particulars of the scheme for the distribution of the Untenanted lands on the Mount Shannon Estate, in the county of Limerick, the names of the evicted tenants who are getting some of these lands, the area, and the annuities they will have to pay, and the number of labourers to whom allotments have been given and the extent of same, and any other particulars pertaining to the scheme.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners are not at present in a position to furnish the information asked for in the Question, nor do they consider that any useful purpose commensurate with the labour involved would be served by publishing such details. Full information of such re-sales to tenants will be given in the monthly Returns of advances made under the Act of 1903, which are periodically presented to Parliament.

  Repatriation of Chinese Coolies.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Chinese coolies in the Transvaal have at their own request been repatriated at the public expense down to 1st May, 1907;and has Lord Selborne reported that coolies brought in without licences would require compensation amounting to at least £20 each for loss of what they ignorantly regard as profitable and advantageous employment, and that any proposal to repatriate them would probably lead to riot amongst them.
  (Answered by - Mr. Churchill.) The number is 766. Lord Selborne's opinion will be found in his telegram printed at page 5 of Cd. 3405.

  Allocation of the Transvaal Loan.
  SIR F. BANBURY: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the objects to which the £35,000,000 loan to the Transvaal, guaranteed by Great Britain, has been applied, showing what amounts have been allocated to each item of expenditure.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The account up to 28th February last is as follows:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Cost of raising loan

  —

  —

  407,162

  19

  0

  Head I. Existing liabilities of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony:—

  (a) Deficit of the Transvaal for 1901–2

  —

  541,509

  11

  6

  (b) Former debt of South African Republic

  —

  2,499,880

  0

  0

  (c) Compensation to loyalists:

  Natal

  500,285

  15

  7

  Cape Colony

  1,060,565

  19

  5

  1,560,815

  15

  0

  4,602,241

  6

  6

  Head II. Acquisition of existing railways in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony

  —

  —

  13,077,619

  1

  1

  Head III. Repatriation and compensation in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony:—

  (a) Advances by way of loan—

  Transvaal

  2,212,730

  4

  7

  Orange River Colony

  506,625

  15

  5

  (b) Other charges —

  2,719,356

  0

  0

  Transvaal

  3,602,020

  13

  8

  Orange River Colony

  934,908

  16

  1

  4,536,929

  9

  9

  7,256,285

  9

  9

  Head IV New development in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony:—

  (a) New railways

  —

  3,818,308

  0

  0

  (b) Land settlement:—

  Transvaal

  1,219,924

  10

  4

  Orange River Colony

  1,230,000

  0

  0

  (c)Other public works:

  2,449,924

  10

  4

  Transvaal

  1,290,717

  0

  2

  Orange River Colony

  500,000

  0

  0

  Railway Department: Improvement of railways

  1,542,000

  0

  0

  3,332,717

  0

  2

  9,600,949

  10

  6

  Balance unissued

  —

  —

  55,741

  13

  2

  35,000,000

  0

  0

  Naval Pensions—Case of George Day.
  MR. W. BENN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been directed to the case of George Day, 5,954 B, who from 1887 to 1896, and subsequently from 1897 to 1906, served in the Royal Naval Reserve, being discharged last year as medically unfit; and whether, in view of the fact that Day completed a term of twenty years' practically continuous service, he will say if he is entitled to a pension or gratuity.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Under the regulations continuity of service is a necessary condition for the grant of a pension or gratuity, and, even if Day's service had been continuous, the period counting for pension or gratuity would be sixteen years as compared with the twenty years required.

  Pay and Duties of Admiralty Writing Staff.
  MR. E. H. LAMB: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, before the scheme of pay and terms of employment of writers was approved, due inquiry was made into the duties performed by the writing staffs in all departments of the naval establishments in which writers are employed and also in all corresponding departments at the Admiralty; and whether he will state on what grounds it is proposed not to continue establishment for the grade corresponding to first-class writer; and if, because of interchange-ability of duties with another class, he will say on what grounds it is approved to continue two grades.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part, it was found that under the former scheme established and hired writers were performing similar work, the latter with less pay and little or no prospect of establishment, which was the cause of much discontent. The new scheme provides for one class only; but, in order to promote efficiency and give encouragement to good men, it was found necessary for administrative purposes to divide the class into two grades.
  MR. E. H. LAMB: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty with reference to revised scheme of pay and terms of employment for writers, whether, in giving their decision regarding question of alteration of title, the Admiralty will take into consideration the fact that the present title is a misnomer and that an alteration, while involving no expense, would cause keen satisfaction to the men concerned; and whether he is aware that however capable a principal writer may be he is unable at present, in many departments, to rise above that grade, and seeing that the best interests of the service require that zeal and efficiency shall be encouraged, and in order to recognise meritorious service, he will arrange that a proportion of the vacancies in the directing staff of store departments of the Admiralty shall be given to deserving principal writers, on the recommendation of the heads of their Departments, observing that the principle of promotion from the lower to the higher positions obtains in the naval and military services.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson) The Answer to the first part of the Question is that the present title is considered the most suitable, having in view the nature of the duties to be performed. As regards the latter part of the Question, principal writers have, in exceptional cases, been selected to fill higher appointments; but it is not possible to lay down any general rule for the future.

  Relations in Postal Service
  MR. DUNCAN SCHWANN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state the date upon which the regulations prohibiting the relatives of supervising officials being appointed at the same office were so modified as to exempt females; whether the staff were informed of this alteration; and whether, in view of the possibilities of favouritism, he will state the reason for the action.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The regulations, which were to some extent a matter of practice rather than of formal rule, were modified in 1903. No general notice was issued to the staff, but officers likely to be affected are duly warned

  1085
  upon appointment. The possibilities of favouritism are borne in mind, and exceptional cases are dealt with on their merits. It is obviously more difficult for a young woman than for a young man to live away from home.

  Postage on Post cards from Cyprus to United Kingdom.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the charge for postage of post cards from Cyprus to the United Kingdom is one piastre (about 1⅓pence), while the charge for letters is only one penny and, if so, whether he will take immediate steps to remove this inequality.
  (Answered by Mr, Sydney Buxton.) The Cyprus Post Office is not under my control. I am aware of the anomaly, and have reason to believe that the question of removing it is occupying the attention of the Colonial authorities.

  Seizure of Ammunition at Newcastle.
  MR. THORNE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Joseph Hogarth, who was charged on remand at the Newcastle police court with having been in the unlawful possession of 25,000 Mauser pistol cartridges and 6,500 Mauser rifle cartridges in a workshop occupied by him at 42, Leazes Park Road, Newcastle; and whether, seeing that the magistrates ordered the confiscation of the cartridges without requiring proof that they were dangerous to the public, he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The cartridges in question, being kept in an unauthorised place, were liable to forfeiture under Sections 5 and 39 of the Explosives Act, 1875, irrespective of their danger to the public. I do not therefore propose to take any action in the matter.

  Accommodation at Copley School, Halifax.
  MR. CARLILE: To ask the President of the Board of Education if he can state the present accommodation of the provided council school at Copley, Halifax, and the average roll and attendance during
  1086
  the last year for which figures are available.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.)—

  Mixed.

  Infants.

  Recognised accommodation

  214

  170

  †Average attendance

  124

  61

  †Average number on the registers

  139

  73

  Income Tax on Authors' Royalties.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether money paid to authors who receive remuneration for their work wholly or in part by way of royalty will be regarded as earned or unearned income for the purpose of abatement of income-tax.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith) The conditions of payment, which depend in each case on the terms of the particular contract, vary so much, that I do not think it would be possible to lay down any general rule which would be applicable to all cases. Under the Finance Bill, as drafted (Clause 18 (7) (c), earned income is defined, as regards profits assessable under Schedule D, into which category these royalties fall, as any income which "is immediately derived by the individual from the carrying on or exercise by him of his profession, trade, or vocation." Whether, and how far, an author's receipts from royalties should be regarded as being immediately derived from the exercise of his vocation of authorship, or to have become an income from property in the copyright, will have to be determined, as a matter of fact, according to the circumstances of the particular case.

  Irish Council Bill—Powers of the Eight Departments.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing the powers of the eight Departments
  †For the year ending 31st December, 1906.

  1087
  specified in Clause 2, subsection (2) (a), which are to be transferred to the control of the council under the Irish Council Bill; also showing the powers of the authorities specified in the third schedule to the same Bill.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The powers and duties of the Departments and authorities referred to are set forth in various statutes, the interpretation of which rests in the last resort with Courts of Law. I do not think it desirable that I should undertake to lay a Return purporting to give an authoritative statement of these powers and duties.

  Powers of the Irish Privy Council.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is proposed, and, if so, when and how, to confer upon the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Ireland the jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition for the purpose of enabling it to exercise the powers conferred on it by Clause 17 of the Irish Councils Bill.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Judicial Committee referred to in Clause 17 of the Bill is the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and not of the Privy Council in Ireland. There is no Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Ireland, save for the purpose of hearing appeals under Section 10 (3) (d) of The Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898.

  Irish Council Bill and Irish Boards.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland which of the eight Departments whose powers it is proposed to transfer to the Irish Council, with the exception of the inspector of reformatory schools, is a Department of, or has its offices in, or adjacent to, Dublin Castle; are the Boards or Departments carrying on administrative business in Ireland more or less numerous than the similar Boards or Departments in England; and how many of them are common to both countries.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) There is no proposal to transfer any powers of the eight Departments and authorities named in Clause 2 (2) (a) of the Bill. I am not aware that the local habitation of these
  1088
  Departments is a matter of moment; they are all under the control of the Lord-Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary. I have not found it necessary, for the purposes of the Bill, to inquire how many Boards or Departments there may be in England, nor does the question appear to have any important bearing on the matter.

  New Irish Council—Power of Lord-Lieutenant.
  LORD BALCARRES: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if it is proposed to empower the Lord-Lieutenant to call for a resolution from the new Council; whether, if anxious to revise his decision, he may recall a resolution which has already been before him; and whether he may take independent action to prevent public or private injury in the event of no resolution being submitted to him by the Council.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The eight Departments mentioned in Clause 2 (2) (a) of the Bill will, subject to directions that may be given to them by resolutions of the Council, continue to exercise their administrative functions. The manner in which the resolutions are to be communicated to the Lord-Lieutenant and the Departments will be prescribed by the general rules, Clause 21 (2). As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer the noble Lord to Clause 3 (2) of the Bill.

  Action of Mr. Crozier, J. P., of Blacklion.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that one William Scales, who had sent four calves to graze on the farms of Mr. Taylor, of Blacklion, was called upon by Mr. Crozier, of Blacklion, a justice of the peace, to withdraw his stock and have no further dealings with Taylor; and whether he will consider the advisability of calling the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the conduct of this magistrate.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am not aware that Mr. Crozier has acted as stated in the first part of the Question, and there is not, therefore, any necessity for adopting the course indicated in the concluding paragraph of the Question.

  Irish Council Representation.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will say whether the representation allocated to counties in Ireland in the Irish Council Bill is based on population or area.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell). I beg to refer to my printed Answer to a similar Question put by the hon. Member for South Kilkenny yesterday.†

  New Army Scheme—Financial Liability of County Association.
  COLONEL LONG: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether under the new Territorial Forces scheme the county associations will require to raise any funds by voluntary subscription or from the rates, or whether the funds provided by the Government will cover all costs of keeping the new national Territorial Army thoroughly efficient; and whether seeing that the grants from Government are to be paid partly on results, it will be necessary for the county associations to raise working capital to commence with.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The Government grants are intended to provide all that is necessary for efficiency. As regards the last part of the Question, it is probable that advances will be made on impress, the necessary adjustment being made on the efficiency return being certified and checked.

  Inducement to Militiamen to join Special Contingent.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to offer any, and, if so, what inducement to join the nucleus third battalions or special contingent to recruits or men serving in the present Militia, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The question of offering a bonus to Militiamen to induce them to join the special contingent is now under consideration.

  Volunteers—Special Contingent.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether trained Volunteers who enlist in the nucleus third battalion or special contingent will
  † See (4) Debates, clxxiv., 933.
  1090
  join as recruits; or whether their previous: training will be taken into account.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The previous training of Volunteers who enlist into the nucleus third battalions will be taken into account when the amount of training they will have to undergo is determined.

  Trained Volunteers of the new Territorial Army.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether trained Volunteers who have retired will be permitted to join the Territorial Army as trained men in the same way as they are at present permitted to rejoin the Volunteers.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) These persons will be permitted to join the Territorial Force subject to any special condition, such as regards age, etc., which it may be found necessary to impose.

  Barracks without Accommodation for Royal Army Temperance Association.
  MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for War, if he will give the names of the barracks in the United Kingdom in which no rooms for the accommodation of the Royal Army Temperance Association are provided.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I am taking steps to ascertain what barracks have not got accommodation for the Royal Army Temperance Association, and will send my honourable friend a copy of the return.

  40th Brigade Royal Field Artillery—Compensation for Expenses incurred under Orders now cancelled.
  MR. HARRIS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that, after receiving definite orders to proceed on the 23rd May from Gravesend to Glasgow, the 40th Brigade of the Royal Field Artillery have, within a fortnight of that date, had these orders cancelled, he will say whether compensation will be paid to those married officers who, relying on the first order, have taken houses in Glasgow or have incurred other expenses in consequence of these instructions.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) There is no provision under the regulalations for compensation in such cases, which I regret must be regarded as an incidence of the service.

  Labourers' Pay at Woolwich Arsenal.
  MR. CROOKS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the labourers at Woolwich Arsenal were guaranteed a minimum rate of 23s., and that they are now called upon to lose some part of this wage; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent any encroachment upon the wages of the most poorly paid men in the Royal Arsenal.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The fall of wages below the minimum is due to the working of short time voluntarily adopted by workmen at Woolwich in order to reduce the number of discharges. No guarantee, such as is suggested in the Question, has ever been made as regards an irreducible minimum. The Ordnance Factories rules distinctly provide that no concession can be made as regards loss of pay due to the closing of a factory in conformity with local custom or to suit the convenience of the majority of the men.

  Cavalry Barracks for Scotland.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: To ask the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking towards the building of cavalry barracks in Scotland.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane): I am sorry that I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject.

  Extension of Scottish Small Landholders Bill to England.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: To ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to bring in a Bill to extend the provisions of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill, as regards fixity of tenure, compulsory hiring, and a revaluation every seven years, to England in the near future.
  Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman): I would suggest that the hon. and gallant Member should await the introduction of the English Small Holdings Bill.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.
MR. SCARISBRICK: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the number of torpedoes to-be manufactured for the Admiralty during the present financial year; and how many will be made at Woolwich, and how many by Messrs. Whiteheads of Weymouth.
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): The number of torpedoes to be manufactured during the present financial year is dependent on the torpedo armament of the submarine boats, which has not yet been definitely decided. The proportion of torpedoes given respectively to Woolwich and Messrs. Whitehead will probably be three to one.
MR. BELLAIRS: Is that the proportion usually allotted?
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I think it is.

Training Youths at Sea.
MR. BEAUCHAMP: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether 120 youths-from "Ganges II." were, early in January, sent to two of the battleships of the Nore Division of the Home Fleet; whether they form part of the complement; and whether he can state the total number of hours spent at sea by these two battleships since the youths were drafted into them.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: 119 youths were drafted to His Majesty's Ships "Magnificent" and "Victorious" in January last; and these ships have since then spent at sea 196 hours and seventy-six and a half hours respectively. Although I deprecate inquiries into minute details regarding the complements of His Majesty's ships, I may say on this occasion that these youths belong to the complement of the ships referred to, being largely in substitution, for boys borne in the normal seagoing, complement.

Empire Day.
CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War

1093
whether he will give instructions that the British flag be flown on the new War Office building on Empire Day, 24th May.
MR. J. A. PEASE (; for MR. HALDANE): As the hon. and gallant Member was informed last year, the date in question is not one of the days on which a flag is ordered to be flown at the War Office.
CAPTAIN CRAIGasked if the Secretary of State would not have it done this year.
MR. J. A. PEASEsaid his right hon. friend did not propose at present to add to the number of days on which the flag was flown at the War Office.

War Department Land at Hilsea.
MR. BRAMSDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the advertisement in the local papers at Portsmouth relating to the letting by public tender of nearly 400 acres of War Department land at Hilsea in seven lots, in which it is stated that intending I applicants may tender for any or all or any combination of the holdings; if it is his intention, as far as possible, to let these lots to separate tenants in preference to letting the whole to one or two persons only, and so carry out the policy of the Government of dividing up Crown lands into small holdings; and whether he will ascertain, by public advertisement, if there is a distinct demand in the neighbourhood for small allotments, and, if so, divide up and let some of the land mentioned in that manner.
MR. J. A. PEASE (for MR. HALDANE): It is intended to let the seven lots in question separately. It must be pointed out that War Department land differs from Crown lands in respect of the purposes for which it may be required, and it is considered essential that War Deparment land should only be let upon terms which admit of re-occupation without difficulty.
MR. BEAMSDON: Can I have an Answer to the last part of the Question?
MR. J. A. PEASE: The Answer is in t he negative. The War Office can only
1094
let the lands under conditions admitting of re-occupation without difficulty. There would therefore be no advantage in advertising as suggested.

Sandhurst Cadets—Delay in Gazetting.
MR. HAET-DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that some months frequently elapse between the departure of a cadet from Sandhurst and his appointment to a regiment; and whether he will consider the advisability of shortening this time as much as possible in the interest of the cadets themselves.
MR. J. A. PEASE (for Mr. HALDANE): Owing to the disbandment of infantry battalions and the necessity for absorbing the supernumerary subalterns, some unavoidable delay recently occurred in gazetting the Sandhurst cadets. As a general rule every effort is made to shorten the time between the departure of the cadet from the Royal Military College and the date of his gazetting.

Army Pay.
*CAPTAIN FABEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state what pay men will receive on joining the third battalions of infantry under the new scheme; and what reserve pay the same men will receive when passing into the special contingent.
MR. J. A. PEASE (for Mr. HALDANE): It is proposed that the pay of the special contingent when called up for training shall be on the scale of that of the Regular Army, and that their reserve pay shall approximate to the bounties now given to the Militia.

The Yeomanry.
SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed by the Army Council that the Yeomanry should still be armed and trained with the bayonet, in view of the fact that, under the new Territorial Army scheme, they are to undertake the duties of cavalry; and whether orders will be issued at once abolishing the bayonet as a weapon for the Yeomanry, in order that the time now spent in training men to the use of

1095
this weapon may be better utilised in making them acquainted with weapons more suitable to a cavalry soldier.
MR. J. A. PEASE (for Mr. HALDANE): No decision has been come to on this point.

New Territorial Force Estimates.
MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when he proposes to lay upon the Table the revised Estimates and Memoranda about the Territorial Forces.
MR. J. A. PEASE (for Mr. HALDANE): This Paper will be laid on the Table before the date of the Committee stage of the Bill.

Indian Land Tax.
MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the instructions contained in the letter of the Supreme Government, No. 397, of 31st May, 1888, sanctioning in the Central Provinces 60 per cent. on all holdings, and 65 per cent. on some, as the proportion of net profit to be assigned as the Government share to land revenue are still in force; and whether, seeing that the land revenue of the Punjab has increased to £1,925,000 in the past year from £1,500,000 in 1891, in which year the Financial Commissioner of the Punjab declared that in many areas quite half the agriculturists were already ruined beyond redemption, he will refer the question as to how far this increase of 30 per cent. in fifteen years is justified to an independent Committee to be appointed by him.
*THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE,): The rule at present in force in the Central Provinces is that the assessment should not be less than 50 per cent. of the assets, and should not exceed 60 per cent.; but in exceptional cases, if the existing assessment has hitherto exceeded 65 per cent. and been paid with out difficulty, it is provided that the assessment shall be fixed at 65 per cent. In settlements made in recent years, the assessment has been less than 50 per cent. of the rental. In his Answer to the hon. Member's Question of the 13th
1096
May,†the Secretary of State explained the causes for the increase of land revenue in the Punjab, and he also pointed out that the cases of indebted agriculturists reported by Mr. Thorburn, were not attributed by him to the pressure of the land assessment. The Secretary of State sees no sufficient reason for an inquiry such as is proposed.
MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: Is it a fact that there is also a very heavy tax on the supply of water in the Punjab, which greatly increases the land tax?
*MR. HOBHOUSE: The charge for water in connection with irrigation schemes falls particularly on certain land, but not in connection with the land assessment.
MR. REES: May I ask whether it is not the case that the scale of assessment which has just been referred to is very much smaller than that which was levied by previous Governments in India, and whether the increase in the land revenue of the Punjab is not small compared with the increase of prosperity resulting from these great irrigation works?
*MR. HOBHOUSE: It has always been held by the native rulers in India that they have the power of assessing the land for taxation in the way we assess it at present. It is also unquestionably a fact that our assessment for land revenue is anything from 15 to 30 per cent. of the assets lower than that of the native rulers who were there before our time.
MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: Would it not be advisable to have this reply as the result of an independent inquiry? I entirely deny the accuracy of every statement.

Arrest of a Basuto Chief.
MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has official information of the arrest in Natal on the 13th instant of Mr. Josiah Gumede, who was one of the deputation of Basuto chiefs who recently laid their petition before the Colonial Office, and returned to South Africa last month at the
† See (4) Debates, clxxiv., 577.

1097
repeated request of Lord Elgin; and if so, what is the charge against Mr. Gumede; and if he has no information will he inquire by cable.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. Churchill,): No, Sir. Inquiry has already been made by cable.

The Imperial Conference.
MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies a Question of which I have given him private notice, whether he has seen a statement as to the account in a daily paper of an unfortunate incident at the Colonial Conference, of which he said "it is from beginning to end a baseless and impudent fabrication"; whether his attention has been called to the following denial in the same paper to-day: "Immediately after Mr. Churchill's statement had been delivered in the House of Commons, a special, correspondent of the Daily Mail proceeded to Bristol and saw Sir Robert Bond, who, on being questioned, admitted that the statement published in yesterday's Daily Mail was substantially correct"; and what steps the right hon. Gentleman intends to take to remedy what seems to be an unfair slur on two of his colleagues sitting behind him.
MR. CHURCHILL: I have seen the statement referred to, but I have also seen a very much longer detailed statement by Sir Robert Bond, which appears entirely to contradict it, and which also appears in the Daily Mail. Sir Robert Bond is out of town to-day, so I have not had an opportunity of asking him which of the opinions attributed to him he holds by; but if I were asked to express an opinion I should say that the statement attributed to him by the Daily Mail is another misrepresentation from the same mint.
VISCOUNT TURNOURasked the Prime Minister, as President of the Imperial Conference, whether it was the fact that Sir Robert Bond's speech at Tuesday's sitting of the Imperial Conference lasted for upwards of an hour, and why the précis of that speech was condensed into four lines.
MR. CHURCHILL: The Prime Minister is not President of the Conference. The regulation appointing him President will not come into force till a future Conference. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that Sir Robert Bond handed in a long report of his speech, and it was agreed by the Conference that it should be printed in extenso in the verbatim Reports, which will be shortly laid before Parliament.
VISCOUNT TURNOUR:The right hon. Gentleman does not appear to have understood the point of the Question—why it is that a speech which lasted for upwards of an hour was condensed into four lines, and why different treatment is meted out to different speakers in the précis of the Conference.
MR. CHURCHILL: No different treatment is meted out to different speakers. I do not think it would have been of very great use or value if a long and complex statement, which is shortly to be published in toto, had been reduced to the compass of a short summary, especially considering that the question of the Newfoundland fisheries raises matters touching foreign affairs.
MR. PIKE PEASE: When will the verbatim Report be ready?
MR. CHURCHILL: I should think it would be ready when the House meets after the holidays.

Japanese Bounties in Korea.
SIR F. CAWLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information showing that the Japanese Government are subsidising cotton goods shipped to Korea; and, if so, can he say to what extent it is being done.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): The reply is in the negative. I may add also that some months ago a complete denial was given by the Japanese authorities concerned to a statement published in the Press that cotton goods exported from Japan to Korea were to receive certain advantages, including special freight terms.

Truro-Helston Division—Land Tax Commissioners.
MR. HAY MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that, although the Land Tax Commissioners Act, 1906, expressly states that the Treasury shall cause notice to be given to each Commissioner of all meetings of the Commissioners of the county, etc., the clerk to the Land Tax Commissioners in the Truro-Helston Division of Cornwall has failed to notify many of the Commissioners of meetings which have been held since that Act came into operation; and whether he will take such steps as will ensure obedience to the provisions of the Act.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): I am informed that in the West Kerrier Division (in which Helston is situated) the provisions of the Act have been duly carried out. In the West Powder Division, however (which includes the city of Truro), the procedure prescribed by the Act does not appear to have been followed. This is doubtless due to some misapprehension on the part of the clerk to the Commissioners, and I have asked the Board of Inland Revenue to call his attention to the matter.

Local Government Board—Assistant Clerk's Pension.
MR. THORNE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that in January last a senior assistant clerk, of uniformly good character, was compelled to resign from his Department in consequence of paralysis of the brain, rendering him incapable for life of following any employment whatever; that, owing to the deduction on account of pension of half his unestablished service rendered as a writer, he has, after thirty-one years continuous clerical service, been awarded a pension amounting to only about 16s. per week; and whether, seeing that under Section 3 of the Superannuation Act of 1887, it was within the power of the Treasury to grant this officer the benefit of the whole of his continuous service which merged into established service, and in view of the fact that this officer's duties in both his unestablished
1100
and established capacities were exactly similar, he will take steps to secure a revision of the pension and the calculation thereof on the basis of entire service, as is done in the case of Customs boatmen, established messengers, and certain other classes whose temporary service is followed by established service.
MR. RUNCIMAN: The decision of the Treasury was in accordance with their invariable practice in calculating the pensions of assistant clerks or abstractors, who have previously been temporary copyists, and I regret that, notwithstanding the distressing circumstances of this case, it is not possible to make it an exception. For the reason why in these cases only half the temporary service is reckoned for pension I may refer the hon. Member to the Answers given by my predecessor to similar Questions on 26th March and 17th May, 1906.†
MR. CROOKS: Is it not possible for the Treasury to grant a compassionate allowance in a case like this?
MR. RUNCIMAN: I fear it is not.

Camberwell Infirmary.
MR. REES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what was the total cost of the new infirmary and guardians' offices at Camberwell.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): The total cost of the infirmary was £183,957, and of the offices £21,799.
MR. REES: Are these not exceedingly high figures?
MR. JOHN BURNS: Without further information I should say that they were generous.
MR. LEIF JONES: How much does the cost of the infirmary work out per bed?
MR. JOHN BURNS: I am seeking details.
MR. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman extend to the ratepayers of
†See (4) Debates, cliv, 840; clvii, 631.

1101
Camberwell the protection promised to Hammersmith?
MR. JOHN BURNS: I hope we are extending that protection everywhere.

Local Taxation Grant-in-Aid.
MR. PATRICK WHITE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what was the administrative cost of the Local Government Board in England for the years 1903, 1904, 1905, and 1906 respectively; and what amount was paid to it in each year for the relief of local taxation.
MR. JOHN BURNS: Perhaps I may answer this Question. The administrative cost of the Department for the years referred to varied from, in round numbers, £218,000 to £227,000, and the amounts paid to the Board for the relief of local taxation in each of these years was upwards of £8,000,000. I will send the hon. Member a statement giving the particulars for each year.

Education Grants.
MR. PATRICK WHITE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what amounts of money were paid out of the Consolidated Fund or out of Revenue for the purpose of primary education in England during the years 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904, and 1905, respectively.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA,): I will send my hon. friend a statement giving, so far as possible, the information he requires or, if he prefers it, I will circulate it with the Votes.
MR. PATRICK WHITE: Will it be circulated to-morrow?
MR. MCKENNA: I do not think that is possible. I will issue it as soon as I can.

Medical Inspection of School Children.
MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if his attention has been called to the evidence given before the Departmental Committee on the Medical Inspection of School Children, showing that the existing methods of
1102
inspection, as conducted by the local educational authorities in England, lack uniformity and co-ordination, and are, in many instances, of little value; and whether he proposes to issue, for the guidance of these authorities and their inspectors, a memorandum of suggestions and make a request for annual reports under certain specific headings to test the adequacy of the inspection.
MR. MCKENNA: I think there can be no doubt that when the Administrative Provisions Bill becomes law, some guidance and advice from the Board of Education as to the methods of inspection and the classification of results will be necessary. How to secure the maximum of advantage from a general system of medical inspection consistently with securing the smooth working of the scheme and the cooperation of local authorities is a matter which requires and is receiving careful consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

Education Department Medical Officers.
MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education in what capacity the two medical men are attached to the Board of Education; and whether he proposes to assign to them definite medical duties, and make them directly responsible to himself and not to the permanent head of the Department.
MR. MCKENNA: The two officers in question hold the post of His Majesty's Inspector of Schools, and it is mainly on their advice that the Board act in dealing with schools for afflicted children and other matters where technical medical knowledge is especially necessary. I see no reason for introducing such an innovation in the organisation of a Government Department as my hon. friend suggests in the last paragraph of his Question.

Scottish Education Department Reports.
MR. MORTON:I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he can say when the Annual Reports of the Scottish Education Departments will be published; and will he see that they are circulated two or three days before the Vote comes on.
THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW,): My right hon.

1103
friend has asked me to reply. The annual general Report of the Department will be presented to Parliament in the course of the next few days. Most of the subsidiary reports comprised in the Appendix to the Report have already been published, and I have every expectation that all the reports will be circulated in good time for any discussion on the Vote.

Scottish Local Government Reports.
MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he can say when the Annual Reports of the Fishery Board, the Local Government Board, the Congested Districts Board, and the Crofters Commission (Scotland) will be published; and will he see that they are circulated some days before the Votes come on.
MR. THOMAS SHAW: The Crofters Commission Report has already been issued. The other reports are in the hands of the printers and the extreme importance of early issue has been pressed upon them, It is hoped they will be in the hands of Members some days before Supply is taken.

Scottish Slaughter Houses.
MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been called to the unanimous recommendation of the Convention of Royal Burghs of Scotland that private slaughter-houses should be abolished and public abattoirs substituted; and if he will take steps, in view of that recommendation, to carry out the suggestion.
MR. THOMAS SHAW: When the inquiry now in progress is completed the recommendation referred to by my hon. friend will receive careful consideration.

Inspection of Carcases of Swine.
MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will see that all carcases of swine slaughtered in Ireland for export to Scotland are inspected in accordance with the recommendation of the Local Government Board, namely, that the presence of tubercular deposit in any degree should involve seizure of the whole carcase and organs; and, if the carcases and organs cannot be inspected by competent inspectors in Ireland, will
1104
he take steps to prevent the flesh being sold in Scotland for human food.
MR. SHAW: With regard to the first part of my hon. friend's Question, I must ask him to apply to the Chief Secretary for Ireland. With regard to the second part it is not proposed to alter the system established by the Public Health Act, 1897.

Diseased Meat in Glasgow Market.
MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been called to the fact that on the 18th and 20th February last forelegs of chilled beef were seized in Glasgow Meat Market on the stance of the agent of one of the largest meat exporters in the United States; that these forelegs were stamped U.S. inspected and passed; that they showed tubercular nodules and, on incision, glandular invasion; and if he will say what steps the Local Government Board have taken to prevent importation of meat in such condition into Scotland.
MR. SHAW: I have received no official information with regard to the facts mentioned by my hon. friend. The Local Government Board for Scotland have no power to prevent the importation of meat from any country. The present system of inspection authorised by Section 43 of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, is, if properly administered, sufficient to protect the consumer of foreign meat, as is shown by the seizure of the meat in the case referred to.

United Irish League and the Estates Commissioners.
CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the last monthly meeting of the executive committee of the North Roscommon Branch of the United Irish League, at which representatives from the local branches of Boyle, Crossna, Drumlion, Creeve, Aughrim, Croghan, Ballinameen, Kilgass, Kilmore, Bally-broughter-and-Kilmaryal, Rooskey - and-Tarmonbarry, and Killina were present, the chairman stated that the United Irish League had achieved a great victory quite recently over the Estates Commissioners, who held a certain complement of grazing land around Boyle about which

1105
they had sent out notices of their intention to let by auction under the eleven months' system, which intention was successfully frustrated by the Boyle branch of the United Irish League; will he say whether the Boyle Board of Guardians have since appointed three men to act as trustees over the land in question; whether the Government intend to take action in the matter or to allow the United Irish League to have complete control in the county of Roscommon; and whether he is aware that Mr. James Fagan at the same meeting stated that around Elphin all had surrendered their takes, with the exception of one or two, owing to the intimidation practised by the United Irish League.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): The police authorities inform me that the meeting referred to in the Question was hold within doors, and they have no information as to the language which may have been used at it. The Estates Commissioners hold seventy acres of Untenanted land near Boyle, for the division of which arrangements have not yet been made. Pending the resale of this land the Commissioners advertised the letting of the grazing for the present season, but subsequently, upon the suggestion of their inspector, they let the grazing to a local committee of three, who will arrange to take in cattle of the occupiers of small holdings in the neighbourhood. The names of the local committee were suggested by the district council. The Commissioners were not influenced in the matter by the United Irish League and have no knowledge of the proceedings referred to in the Question.

Incendiary Fires in King's County.
CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his Return of incendiary fires affecting Protestant property in King's County within the last six months included property belonging to Mrs. Studholme, of Ballyegan House, Birr, burned 8th October, 1906; Mr. Thomas Taylor, Cumberland Street, Birr, out-offices and hay on farm, 3rd November, 1906; Major Bennett, Grange, Clareen, Birr, March, 1907, and Mr. Cox, Templemore, March, 1907, all Protestants.
MR. CHERRY: My right hon. friend has not furnished any Return on this subject, but he stated, in reply to a Question put by the hon. Member on 17th April, that four cases of incendiary fire in King's County had been reported within the past six months. The only case out of those mentioned in the Question which was included in that number was the case of burning Major Bennett's stables. The burning of Mrs. Studholme's hay shed is believed to have been accidental, and in any case it did not occur within the period. The burning of Mr. Taylor's out-house was clearly accidental. The residence of Sir Hawtrey Cox at Templemore was burnt on 10th March. This case also appears to have been one of accident. Templemore is in Tipperary, and not, as the Question assumes, in King's County.

Exports of Irish Cattle.
CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of cattle exported from Ireland to Great Britain during the past year, and the average value per head.
MR CHERRY: The numbers of cattle exported in 1906 from Ireland to Great Britain, including the Isle of Man, were as follows: Fat cattle, 240,617; stores, 474,230; calves, 55,537; other cattle, 5,897; total, 776,281. The average prices are estimated as follows: Fat cattle, £15 11s. 8d.; stores, £10 15s. 2d.; calves, £4 16s. 0d. The cattle returned as "other cattle" were old cattle, and of very low value.

Dundrum Bridge Scheme.
CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the sympathetic attitude of the late Chief Secretary towards the scheme of erecting a bridge connecting Dundrum with Redmond's Point, Ballykinlar, county Down, and the general desire of the farming class in that locality for such means of communication with Dundrum market, he will consult the various Departments concerned, including the War Office, with the object of obtaining plans, specification, and estimates of the cost of the work.
MR. CHERRY: I would refer to the Answer given by Mr. Bryce to the Question put by the hon. and gallant Member on 10th July last.† At that time the Departments concerned, including the War Office, were communicated with, and it was decided, after careful consideration, that there would be no justification for incurring expenditure from State funds upon the project. In the circumstances the Government do not think that any useful purpose would be served by reopening the matter.
CAPTAIN CRAIG: Is it not the fact that all classes in this district are unanimous in the desire for this bridge?
MR. CHERRY: That may be so; but it is a matter for the county council rather than for the Government.
CAPTAIN CRAIG: How about the War Office? Will the right hon. Gentleman apply to that Department?
MR. CHERRY: I have given the answer of the War Office, and I do not think it is worth while to worry them again.

Gort Rural Assessment.
MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the district council of Gort asked the county council of Galway for a list containing the names of the ratepayers who asked the county council to instruct the reviser of valuations to revise a number of holdings in the Gort rural district in December last; and whether, in view of the refusal of the county council to comply with the request, he will direct the Local Government Board to communicate with the county council, for the purpose of having the council furnish to the ratepayers in the Gort district the information asked for.
MR. CHERRY: The Local Government Board are aware that the Galway County Council have declined to give the information asked for upon the ground that they regard it as confidential. The Board have no powers in the matter and cannot, therefore, require the council to give the information.
† See (4) Debates, clx., 729.

Belfast Dock Labourers' Strike.
MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the strike of dock labourers at Belfast organised to compel the Belfast Steamship Company to discharge certain of their workmen who decline to join a particular trade union; whether he is aware that, although the local police authorities were formally warned by the company that a breach of the peace was to be feared, adequate steps to maintain the peace were not taken by them and that, in consequence, the York Dock was on fire at 4 p.m. on the 11th May, while the labourers engaged by the company to carry on the work of their vessels were subjected to violence by the strikers, as the result of which some of these labourers have been seriously injured; whether any, and, if so, what, instructions or suggestions had been previously sent to the police with reference to their action on these occasions; and whether he will take immediate steps to ensure such protection to the company's workers at Belfast as shall enable their lawful employment to be carried on in that city without the risk of further personal violence.
MR. CHERRY: This matter is receiving careful attention. The quays of Belfast harbour are policed by the Harbour Commissioners' Police. On the 9th instant, however, before any disturbance occurred, the Belfast Steamship Company asked for assistance from the Royal Irish Constabulary, and a force of about 300 men has since been employed day and night at the scene. Some rubbish and a bale of hay were found to be on fire at the York Dock on the 11th instant. The fire was at once extinguished; the damage was trifling, and no other injury has been committed. When one of the company's vessels carrying imported labourers was going down the river, lumps of coal were thrown by labourers on other vessels. None of the labourers were hit, but one of the crew was slightly injured. The police were unable to prevent this. No instructions or suggestions were given to the police in the matter. The Commissioner is well aware of his duty of preserving the peace. Ample protection has been afforded throughout and will continue to be afforded to the company's workers.

Kellet's Estate, Meath.
MR. PATRICK WHITE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners propose to purchase Kellet's estate, situate at Barley Hill, county Meath; and, in the event of their doing so, will they distribute the Untenanted land with the occupiers of uneconomic holdings on the estate.
MR. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners inform me that negotiations for the sale of this estate are at present pending before them. The Commissioners propose to make an offer for the estate provided that the owner should place at their disposal certain Untenanted lands which the Commissioners consider to be required for the purpose of enlarging the uneconomic holdings. The Commissioners are awaiting a reply from the owner as to this. If the Commissioners should acquire the Untenanted land they will consider the claims of occupiers of uneconomic holdings on the estate.

Irish Grazing Farm Disputes.
CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Monday, 6th May last, a grass farm at Castle French, in the tenancy of John Burns, Ballygar, county Galway, was cleared of cattle by the adjoining tenants, and he was compelled to put them on another farm at Avaghty; and whether he can make any statement on behalf of the Government as to their intentions regarding the action of branches of the United Irish League in the South and West of Ireland against peaceable tenants owning grazing farms.
MR. CHERRY: The facts are as stated in the Question. The Government were taking steps to replace the cattle on the farm and protect them there, and also to prosecute the persons who drove them off. The Government have now been informed that these persons have abandoned their attitude of opposition to the peaceful return of the cattle to the farm and their retention there without molestation. But, if necessary, full protection will be given to the owner of the cattle.
VISCOUNT TURNOUR: May I ask whether the Government will take steps in the future to prevent such a large number of these outrages occurring?
MR. CHERRY: All possible steps are being taken to prevent these outrages. Extra police are being brought into the counties and ample protection is being given.
VISCOUNT TURNOUR: May I take it that, in the opinion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the South and West of Ireland are in a satisfactory condition?
MR. CHERRY: I think they are. There are disturbances of some kind everywhere; in Belfast at present there are far more.
CAPTAIN CRAIG: The Belfast disturbances are only due to labour disputes.

Kilmore Demonstration.
CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the United Irish League organised a demonstration against Mr. Sam Russell of Kilmore, county Roscommon, on Sunday, 5th May last; can he state how many persons took part in the illegal intimidation, how many constabulary were present to preserve order belonging to the local force and to the depot respectively; can he state the expense incurred, and whether any of the participators have been brought to justice; was anyone injured; and has Mr. Russell been forced to give up the farm in question.
MR. CHERRY: My right hon. friend answered a Question on this subject yesterday. A prosecution is pending against eight persons in connection with the matter, and it would therefore be undesirable to enter into details.

Athenry Demonstration.
CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that on the 9th May last, seven grass lands on the Lambert Minors estate, county Galway, were cleared of stock, six of the farms adjoining the demesne and one near the town of Athenry, which occupied

1111
the perpetrators from 10 to 4 o'clock; and whether the police have taken any action, and if anyone has been brought to justice.
MR. CHERRY: Proceedings have been directed against twelve persons for the offence of unlawful assembly on the occasion in question. The case is sub judice.

Government Land Legislation.
MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in forthcoming legislative proposals in relation to land, he will insert provisions for relieving the hardships of tenants in urban areas in England and Wales, granting to such tenants powers similar to those included in the Town Tenants (Ireland) Act of last session, and also liberty to enfranchise long leaseholds.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope to my hon. friend that the Bills to be introduced this session will contain the provisions he desires, but the matter will not be lost sight of.

Returning Officers' Fees.
VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he proposes to introduce legislation during the present session to give effect to the resolution carried, nemine contradicente, by this House in March, 1906, for the payment of returning officers' fees out of public funds.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Answer is in the negative.
VISCOUNT TURNOURasked whether, having regard to the unanimous decision come to by the House, the Prime Minister would not consider the desirability of introducing a Bill on this subject before entering upon rather more controversial measures.
MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord has just had an Answer in the negative, and he has repeated the same Question.

Dr. Smartt.
MR. H. PEARSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary for the
1112
Colonies whether he has seen the Report in the East Anglian Daily Times of 15th May last, of a meeting held at Leiston under the auspices of the Eye Conservative and Unionist Association, which was addressed by the Honourable Dr. Smartt, Commissioner of Public Works for Cape Colony; to inquire as to the propriety of a delegate to the Colonial Conference attending and speaking at a political meeting during his visit to this country, and further to inquire whether the Colonial Secretary can see his way to address a remonstrance to the Cape Government on the serious breach of etiquette—
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. If the hon. Member had submitted that Question to me I should not have permitted it. No Department of the Government in this country has any control over the Ministers of a self-governing Colony.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir William Brampton Gurdon reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Probation of Offenders (No 2) Bill): Sir Howard Vincent.
Report to lie upon the Table.

POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
MR. Buxton, Mr. George Greenwood, and Mr. John Wilson (Durham) nominated members of the Select Committee on the Post Office Sites Bill.—(Mr. Whiteley.)
COMPANIES BILL [LORDS].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday, 24th May, and to be printed. [Bill 208.]

SUPPLY [9TH ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES 1907–8.

  CLASS I.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding

  1113
  £348,700, 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 Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, etc., in respect of Government Property, and for Rates on Houses occupied by Representatives of Foreign Powers, and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department, and for a Contribution towards the Expenses of the London Fire Brigade."
  *MR. MORTONcomplained that Government property was not adequately assessed. He said that about 1894, when an alteration was made in the system of valuing Government property, the Government would not consent to their property being valued in the same way as other property was done and by the same municipal officers, and the consequences was that although a higher valuation was put on it it was still by no means assessed at its full value, especially in London. He wished to ask why the Government should not consent, like other people, to have their property assessed by the municipal officers in the ordinary way. Unless that was done it would never be assessed at its proper value. The Government, he knew, claimed that they only paid a contribution in lieu of rates as a matter of grace, and that they were therefore entitled to value their property in their own way. But business men would agree that all property, whether Government or private, should be valued in the same way, and he hoped the Government would make that concession. Then there was the question of rates on houses occupied by the representatives of Foreign Powers; the amount was put down at £7,500, of which £3,000 was returned. But why was not all of it returned? Again, why should the occupiers of apartments in Royal Palaces have their rates paid for them?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): That item only applies to last year.
  *Mr. MORTONwas glad to notice that a charge did not appear on this year's
  1114
  Estimates, and hoped that it would not appear again. People who got houses rent free ought at least to keep them in repair and pay rates like other people. He was glad they had that day an opportunity of quietly discussing these matters. The money the Government were spending was his money and the money of the people. The Government were their servants, and it was his (Mr. Morton's) duty to see that they did their work properly. He wanted to ensure that in future the Government would pay rates on their property the same as other people, otherwise it was a great hardship in some districts on the other ratepayers, and to emphasise his point he moved to reduce the Vote by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £348,600, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Morton.)
  MR. BELLAIRSrose to support the contention of his hon. friend. He held that the system of rating Government property subjected private property to an unfair competition. Private enterprise was unduly handicapped by the heavy rates, and he hoped they would have some assurance from the Government, either that it would allow its property to be assessed by the local authorities or that it would appoint a Committee to consider the whole question. In his opinion the rating of Woolwich Arsenal and of the various dockyards was absurdly low.
  MR. J. D. WHITEasked on what basis the valuation on which Government contributions were made was arrived at, whether on the ordinary basis of a hypothetical tenant or according to the value of the site and the cost of the building. He suggested that the question was of special interest in view of the large Government buildings which were being erected in the immediate neighbourhood of the House.
  MR. REESurged that if the valuation of Government buildings were screwed up the taxpayer would have eventually to pay more in relief of the local ratepayer. He failed to see, therefore, where the advantage would come in.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid he could quite understand the anxiety of the hon. Member for Sutherland about the administration of "my money." All he could say was that Government property was valued in the same way and on the same basis as property held by private owners. The Government valuer was an able representative who saw that the valuation was arrived at after discussion with the local valuation officers, and no serious complaint of the system was forthcoming from any part of the country. The hon. Member knew as well as he did that the houses occupied by foreign representatives were to some extent exempt on the basis of international reciprocity. In reply to the hon. Member for King's Lynn, he said there had been a considerable increase in the dockyard assessment in connection with the extensive works at Keyham. Their effort was in every case to value Government property on the same basis as private property in the same locality.
  MR. BELLAIRSasked whether it was not the case that town councils were continually protesting that they did not get a proper amount of rates out of the dockyards.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid that no doubt that was sometimes suggested, but the Government valuer always consulted the local authorities.
  MR. LEIF JONESthought the Government were quite right in safe-guarding the tax payers against what might prove to be exactions on the part of the rating authorities. After all, these payments were not rates, but contributions in aid of rates, which could be withheld. That was a distinction which ought not to be lost sight of, and the Government ought, to retain its right to refuse to pay if it thought fit to do so.
  MR. MORTONsaid that the Government gave up that contention in 1894.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid that the Government retained that position, but at the same time they paid to the local authorities all to which they were entitled. With regard to the Government property in the City their valuer (Mr. Thompson) saw Mr. Wagstaff, who
  1116
  admitted that the sum fixed upon was fair and reasonable.
  MR. MORTON: I shall have to look after Mr. Wagstaff. He did not tell us that.
  SIR F. BANBURYpointed out that it was a great advantage to any district to have Government buildings within its boundaries in view of the employment thereby afforded to people in the locality. It would therefore be a little unfair to throw the whole burden on the taxpayers generally.
  MR. CROOKSadmitted that the conditions were certainly better than they were two years ago, but still he was told that in the City of London property was under-assessed to the extent of at least £100,000.
  MR. MORTONasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. MORTONsaid he could not agree with the hon. Member for Woolwich as to underassessment in the City of London. Why people were actually assessed on their good-will, and in no part of the world was land so highly assessed as in the one square mile which constituted the City.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLASS II.
  2. £39,400 to complete the sum for Exchequer and Audit Department.
  *MR. MORTONasked as to the hours worked by the clerks and other officials at this office. He did not think they worked as hard as other people, although they were better paid.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid the work done by this Department was some of the most valuable done by any Department of the State.
  MR. MORTONsaid he quite agreed that the Exchequer and Audit Department did valuable work for the nation. He had fully recognised that by inducing.

  1117
  the City Corporation to adopt a similar system, with this difference, that in the City the accounts were examined before they were paid, and not after, as in the Exchequer and Audit Department.
  Vote agreed to.
  3. £41 to complete the sum for the Mint, including Coinage.
  SIR F. BANBURYreferred to the fact that there was an increase of £2,126 in the item for wages, salaries, and allowances. He asked for an explanation of that, and also as to the charges for police, Unless he was mistaken, some few years ago the duty of guarding the Mint was performed by soldiers, and in his view, in the event of a riot, an armed military; force would be much more efficient than a police guard. He was not prepared to accept cheapness as a sound excuse for the change.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid the alteration was made by the predecessors of the present Government, and he was sure the hon. Baronet would agree that they could not fairly use the police for guarding the Mint without recouping the local authorities a fair proportion of the cost.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid he was not objecting to the payment, his point being that the duty of guarding the Mint could be more efficiently done by armed soldiers than by unarmed policemen. There was an opportunity of saving a thousand pounds while securing greater efficiency.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid he would like to consult his right hon. friend the Secretary for War on the subject. He believed there were objections at the time to taking the soldiers for the duty, and he would not like on his own responsibility to go back to that system. However, he would speak to his right hon. friend about it. With regard to the increase of salaries, a portion of that increase was due to the ordinary increment. The sum of £2,000 had been added for wages in connection with the very great increase of coinage work.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYasked why there was a larger
  1118
  loss on the gold coinage this year than in the previous year.
  *MR. MORTONsaid there was an appropriation-in-aid of £340,000, whereas only £138,800 was accounted for in the Vote. He wanted to know what had become of the £200,000 odd. He also wanted to know how many hours a day were worked in the Department. His hon. friend might not have the particulars of the hours of labour, but perhaps he would be able to give them the information on the Report stage. He found outside that objection was taken to an eight hours day for workmen as being too few, and he would like to know whether in this Department they worked six or eight hours a day, because over £200,000 had to be accounted for.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid he could answer the hon. Gentleman that there had not been a loss of £60,000 on the coinage; on the contrary the profits this year were greater than they had ever been before.
  *MR. MORTON: Why do you say £340,000 when you only account for £138,000?
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid the figures which the hon. Gentleman referred to were shown in two places. With regard to the loss on gold coinage referred to by his hon. friend opposite, it was greater last year than the year before owing to fluctuations over which they had no control whatever.
  MR. LEIF JONESsaid that with regard to the silver coinage he saw under Subhead G an allowance of 8 per cent. to bullion brokers on the purchase of silver bullion for coinage, the amount being this year £500, which was ten times as much as was taken last year. He might also observe that loss on coinage, the coinage of silver was only £1,500 which was £500 less. What he wanted to understand was why the loss was so small in a year when the profits on coinage were so great, and the amount of silver bullion bought was great also.
  *MR. MORTONsaid that what he wanted to get from the hon. Gentleman was where the £200,000 had gone to. He also wanted an answer with regard to the hours of labour in the Department.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid the hours of labour in the Department were quite sufficient to deal with the whole of the coinage requirements of the Empire. The whole of the work was done, and there was no object in keeping those engaged under lock and key after their work was done.
  MR. MORTON: Is it eight or six hours?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: That depended on the work before them. The hon. Gentleman wanted to know what had become of the£200,000. It had gone into the Exchequer in relief of the taxation which the hon. Gentlemen and others had to pay in the present year.
  MR. MORTON: It does not say so.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid it was stated. The extra £500 to which his hon. friend had referred was largely due to the new coinage. There had been a very large increase in the demand for silver coinage, and the amount which appeared referred to silver coinage which existed long ago. A very large amount of silver would be added to the currency during the next two years.
  *MR. MORTONsaid he would try to find out where the £200,000 had gone to.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid they had nothing to do with the £200,000 on this Vote, and it was out of order to discuss it.
  MR. MORTONsaid he had failed to get a reply from his hon. friend as to the hours of labour, but he would repeat the question on the Report stage.
  Vote agreed to.
  4. £8,153 to complete the sum for National Debt Office.
  SIR F. BANBURYasked why in this Department there has been an increase of salaries by £832. The total of the salaries last year was £15,419, and this year it was £16,251. This was an excellent Department, and if it was necessary there ought to be an increase of salary,
  1120
  but he would like to know the reason of the increase.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid the reason was that they had paid larger remuneration to the London broker, because of the great increase of his work caused by recent Acts which had been passed. He had been really underpaid considering the amount of work he did, and it had been thought desirable to augment his remuneration.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid he was aware of the £500 which had been added to the gentleman's remuneration, and he was very glad it had been increased to £1,500; but that did not quite explain the figure of £832.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid the balance of the increased figure was largely due to increments in the ordinary course.
  MR. WATTinquired whether the increase was due to additions to the staff, or to the fact that the salaries had been increased.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid he was dealing with the National Debt Office, and the number of the staff was not exactly the same, being seventy-eight as against sixty-seven. The ordinary increments were fixed by the rules and regulations, which had not been varied.
  Vote agreed to.

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £608,700, 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 Customs Department."
SIR GILBERT PARKERdrew attention to the recent appointment of a naval officer to the position of water-guard inspector at Gravesend. On 27th March he asked in the House the following question:—
"If a naval officer has been appointed to the position of water-guard inspector at Gravesend; and, if so, whether this is a departure from the past practice of promoting an experienced assistant inspector to such.

1121
positions, which was an encouragement to capable men to enter the service and lit themselves for the highest duties of their profession."
The reply he got was in effect that there was no regular custom, and that it was not the rule to make the appointment from the preventive officers themselves. He did not think the answer the hon. Gentleman gave him was very sympathetic, and remembering the last political experience of the hon. Gentleman and his association with Gravesend he was extremely surprised at the answer he gave. He could assure him that his answer had caused the deepest disappointment amongst his many admirers in Gravesend, because they had always looked upon him as a friend of the: preventive officer. There had been a great deal of dissatisfaction and discontent among the preventive officers on the Thames for a number of years, and it had been based upon two things—(1) a lack of properly organised promotion, and (2) insufficient salary. There had been inquiry after inquiry, with the result that dissatisfaction still remained. The hon. Gentleman and his department must realise that for efficient service they must have contented workers. Probably the hon. Gentleman would reply that no matter what they gave to a civil servant his mouth would always be open for more. Surely the hon. Gentleman would not say that there was no assistant inspector among the preventive officers capable of filling this position. The preventive officer, as a rule, was an extremely intelligent and efficient man. There was very little encouragement held out to the preventive officer to go on in the profession he had entered, and the pay was small even when the maximum was reached. The only thing that lured him on was the chance of promotion, and if they took away the prospect of being promoted from assistant inspector to full inspector they were robbing the preventive officer of the main thing which induced him to remain contented. They could only make men efficient by good pay and due reward. It was all very well to suggest that these men would get their reward in heaven, and that seemed to be what the predecessors of the hon. Gentleman had suggested. Whilst most of them hoped for that reward they desired some instalment of it now, and preventive officers were no exception to the rule.
1122
He hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to explain this matter, satisfactorily. Although the appointment of this naval officer might seem a small thing, the whole of the preventive officers had been moved to protest. It was a matter of principle which affected the whole of the service. Surely an assistant inspector could have been found qualified amongst the successful, experienced, and efficient preventive officers to fill the position which had been taken up by Captain Graham. He had been informed that this discouragement of the preventive officers would not tend to the improvement of the revenue. The hon. Gentleman was well aware of the claims of the preventive officers, and if he could defend his position, and make it clear that the Department had done what was right, no one would be more grateful than himself. He begged to move a reduction of the Vote by £100.
Motion made and Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £608,600, be granted for the said Service."—(Sir Gilbert Parker.)
MR. RUNCIMANsaid it would probably be for the convenience of the Committee if he dealt with this question at once. He had made it his business to go into the whole of the case. For some time past it had been felt necessary that there should be a slight reorganisation of the staff on the Thames, and that there should be some new blood brought in from outside. It was by no means a new departure; it had been done before in the Customs Department, and it was repeatedly done in the other Departments of the State. The heads of many of our great Departments were men who had not been trained in those Departments, and it was all to the benefit of the officers concerned. Hon. Members might rest assured that this appointment would not lead to any extension of the principle. He preferred that such appointments should be restricted to preventive officers; but they could not always find an assistant fit to be promoted. He thought this appointment would have the effect of improving the standard of the preventive officers on the Thames. As to the effect on the revenue, he could imagine no more grave dereliction of duty than that after such a reorganisation they should be practically threatened by these officers

1123
with a serious effect on the collection of the revenue. In this case it was felt that someone should be brought in from outside with standing and experience like this naval officer, Captain Graham. They sought for the best man they could obtain. If they could have found an equally good man among the assistant inspectors they would have given him the preference.
SIR GILBERT PARKERasked whether the hon. Gentleman could state the nature of the reoganisation he proposed to effect. He did not wish to press for details, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman could state broadly the lines on which the reorganisation was to be effected. They might be prepared to justify the choice of Captain Graham if they understood the circumstances more fully, but the reply which had been given was not satisfactory. He did not think it would give satisfaction to the preventive officers on the Thames or elsewhere:
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that the statement having been made that the preventive staff was to be reorganised, the Committee was entitled to know why reorganisation was necessary.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid he did not mean that the staff was going to be reorganised. Sundry changes would be made which would not affect the standing of the officers at present in the service.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid the statement which the hon. Gentleman had just made gave additional point to his remark. The declaration which the hon. Gentleman had made was of very great importance. In this particular service there were a large number of men, and the Committee was entitled to know why none of the inspectors had been held to be good enough for the appointment now enjoyed by Captain Graham. If no reason was to be given why the Government had thought it necessary to get an outsider, beyond the general statement that the present condition of things was unsatisfactory, he would urge his hon. friend to go to a division, so that the rights of the staff might be protected.
MR. WATTasked whether the appointment of Captain Graham was absolutely essential. The Financial
1124
Secretary had stated that he would have preferred the appointment of a man in the same service, and that it was only owing to exceptional circumstances that an outsider had been appointed in this instance. Was it not apparent on the face of that statement that no preventive officer was considered good enough for promotion, and that practically the apppointment of Captain Graham was a vote of censure on the preventive officers?
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he wished to join in the protest against the appointment of Captain Graham. The Financial Secretary had suggested, although the statement was not made in so many words, that this particular branch of the service had been conducted in an unsatisfactory way, and that, therefore, it was necessary to go outside to get somebody to take up this important position. Another ground on which he protested was that in the water guard service the scope for promotion was exceedingly limited. From communications he had received, he thought be was justified in saying that he spoke for the whole of the service when he said that they felt very sore indeed that an outsider should have been brought in to fill this position, thereby depriving them of the ordinary promotion. If an officer in the service had been appointed, each member of the staff would, at all events, have got a step up. The officers in this particular department did not desire to bring their grievances forward in a spirit of antagonism to the Board of Customs, but they thought that at this juncture their position deserved consideration. Besides the grievance in regard to promotion, they complained of the inadequacy of their present salaries. Before a man could be appointed a preventive officer he had generally to spend seventeen years as a preventive man. When appointed a preventive officer, his salary began at £95 a year, and he received annual increments of £5 up to the maximum of £150, so that it took twenty-nine years to reach that modest remuneration, which was less then £3 a week. Those hon. Members who had travelled in other countries would be able to contrast our Customs officers with the same classs of men abroad. One of the first things that struck the foreigner coming into England was the

1125
fact that in our Customs officers they had to deal with men who were absolutely incorruptible in the discharge of their duty. That was a thing which the foreigner was little accustomed to in his own country, or, at all events, in other countries which he visited. The bringing in of an outsider to fill an important position discouraged a most respectable body of men who on their merits were entitled to much better treatment. These men thought that a maximum of £200 after thirty years service would be a reasonable thing. They had not come to the House of Commons time after time urging their claims, nor had they communicated with Members representing seaports. They had in a quiet way on various occasions endeavoured to make known their legitimate wants and aspirations. He hoped the Financial Secretary would be able to do something for them.
*MR. MORTONsaid if the officers in the service had not ability enough to be promoted to such a position as that to which Captain Grahan had been appointed, they should not be in the service at all. Surely these officers, if they were capable, had a right to look for promotion in the Department when opportunities occurred He did not say that there was not good reason in this case for not promoting an officer in the Department, but no information had been placed before the Committee in justification of the course which had been taken. There was a strong feeling among the staff that there had been favouritism, and therefore some very good reason should be given on behalf of the Government why Captain Graham, who could know nothing about the service had been appointed. He hoped a satisfactory explanation would be given.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid that the hon. Member said that Captain Graham was an inferior man.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that what he had stated was that the Gentleman was not an inferior man, but that he was unacquainted with the office.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid that the Department thought that at the present time it was safer that they should not have a promotion from the ranks of the inspectors, but that they should have new blood introduced for the sake of the
1126
efficiency of the whole Department. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that there was not a single Department of the State where that had not taken place. The hon. Gentleman had said that they were destroying all ambition amongst the members of the preventive service. Did any one suggest that the bringing in of a new chief of a Department would destroy all ambition on the part of the assistants? In 1905, the late Government inquired very fully into this matter, and after that inquiry overtime pay was raised to the amount of £11,000 a year. He could assure hon. Gentlemen that the preventive officers had no reason to grumble so far as pay was concerned. Of course, all Government officials thought they were underpaid. A short time ago he received a deputation from the preventive officers and discussed fully with them the matters which they wished to bring before him. It ought to be remembered that a great improvement had been made in the status of those servants of the State during the last few years. He thought that the pay that was now given to them was quite equal to that paid to other Government servants of the same rank. As to the appointment of Captain Graham, he admitted that it was an unusual appointment; but here they had a large staff of men who must be subjected to a certain amount of discipline, though not so strict as that in the Army and Navy. He was sure that the Secretary for War would refuse to give any explanation as to the personal qualities of a man whom he had promoted. Captain Graham, he could assure the Committee, had not been appointed out of favouritism. His appointment was nothing in the nature of a job; and the work he had done so far was an absolute success. The object of the Department was to make for greater efficency.
SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that they had hoped to find a less subterranean reply to the speeches which had been made from the opposite side of the House. [MINISTERIAL Cries of "Oh."]By that expression he meant that he could not understand the hon. Gentleman even when he put his ears to the ground. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of the efficiency of the Customs service and especially of the preventive officers.
MR. RUNCIMANasked if the hon. Member suggested that an assistant inspector should have been appointed to a position carrying a salary of £650 a year?
SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that the hon. Gentleman urged that the Secretary for War made his appointments without question; but he was sure that if certain promotions were made of Naval Officers, a question would be raised in the House of Commons. He was pressing this matter on the ground that he had not received clear and sufficient information on the point he had originally raised. He was not satisfied, and he was convinced that the majority of the Members of the Committee were not satisfied, that there had been a lack of efficiency on the part of the existing staff of the preventive service and that there was any reason why Captain Graham should have been brought in as the head of the Department over the heads of the other inspectors.
MR. MADDISONsaid that he knew the preventive officers were a worthy set of men. He had always understood that their grievance was that when they were moved from outlying posts to London, where the cost of living was so much greater, they were given no increase of pay. On the other hand he believed that, in regard to old age pensions, there were men doing more skilled work than those men in the preventive service. Allusion had been made to the subterranean reply of the hon. Gentleman, but; that was the first time he had heard such I a description applied to a reply by a Minister who had made his points clear. The hon. Gentleman had said that he approved of promotion by merit in the Department, and if he had been departing from that principle and assenting to a regular system of men being placed over other men's heads he (Mr. Maddison) would have gone into the division lobby against him. He would not consent to any man being deprived of any hope of promotion by another man being placed over his head, but the hon. Gentleman had made it as clear as it could be made that the Board bad carefully inquired into the administration of this Department, and come to the conclusion that it was desirable to introduce fresh blood. It was, therefore, thought advisable to appoint Captain Graham from outside
1128
the Department. His chief concern was for the efficiency of the Department; what he wanted was that the State should be served in the best possible manner, so that they got the best possible value from the heads of Departments. The hon. Member for Gravesend wanted the Minister to go into detail.
SIR GILBERT PARKER: I want a clear statement.
MR. MADDISONsaid a clear statement could never satisfy the hon. Member unless there was considerable detail about it. Supposing there had been insubordination and lack of interest in their work on the part of the officials, was the Minister who took a new departure obliged to justify it in every detail? If a readjustment was necessary it would be made with the minimum of inconvenience to the men displaced, however humble. It was said that the appointment of Captain Graham would be bound to end in a loss of revenue, but he would be surprised to hear that it was true, as an hon. Member had stated, that a man was kept in the service of the State who said he would take it out of the State by not doing his duty. He suggested that the hon. Member for Gravesend should withdraw his Motion for reduction. If there was any idea of interfering with the healthy How of promotion he would support the Motion for reduction, but as what had been done had been stated by the responsible Minister to be in the interests of the public service he could not support it.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that but for the remarks of the previous speaker, he would not have intervened in the debate. The question seemed to be a very simple one. Captain Graham had been appointed because it was desirable to get an efficient person at the head of the Department. He did not know Captain Graham, but he would take it that he was an efficient man; but if there was anything wrong in the Department it would be better if it were stated straight out.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he could not compliment the Financial Secretary on the kind of support which he had received from his own side of

1129
the House. He did not think it was justifiable for an hon. Member to impute that they on that side had not the same desire for the efficiency of the service as hon. Members opposite. [Mr. MADDISON: I never said anything of the kind.] They believed in forwarding the efficiency of the service by promoting someone who was in that service. Therefore their protest was justified. If there was anything wrong in this particular service in regard to efficiency, why was it not stated? He thought the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote should be prepared to tell them what was wrong and not allow any charge to rest upon individuals.
MR. RUNCIMAN: I made no charge whatever of the kind.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that brought him to the alternative. If there was no charge against anybody why did not the hon. Gentleman get up and state the reason for his action?
MR. RUNCIMANsaid he had stated that there was no imputation against the staff, but that there was no man I more suitable for the post of inspector than Captain Graham, whom they had appointed. He thought he had laid it down in perfectly clear terms that it was not their desire to bring outside persons.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid the hon. Gentleman's statement was vague. Men in Government positions were entitled to promotion in the natural course, and when that rule was departed from they were entitled to something more than vague generalities from the Minister in charge of the Vote. No doubt, Captain Graham was a very estimable man, but he had had no experience as a preventive officer, and the reason why he was appointed could not be discovered. Was it not the fact that there was a period in connection with this service when it was under serious consideration to abolish the coast-guard service and gather it in in some way with the water-guard service, and this was one of the steps leading up to that? Then finding that they were not on the right tack—
MR. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to save time, I can assist him
1130
by telling him that there is not the least truth in his suggestion.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he was obliged for that explanation, because there were rumours to that effect, and the general opinion was that that was the only justification for the appointment. As that justification was now taken away by the hon. Gentleman's explanation, and no other explanation was forthcoming, he should join his hon. friend the Member for Gravesend in the lobby.
MR. LEIF JONESsaid the hon. Members who were dividing the Committee were not serving the men by the course they were taking. The hon. Member for Gravesend should be satisfied with having raised the question and obtained the hon. Gentleman's explanation. The Financial Secretary had admitted the position that promotion should be from the service, but had said that there were not many who could be promoted to the position to which Captain Graham had been appointed. He would be very unwise to allow himself to be drawn into saying what exactly were the reasons for the appointment of Captain Graham. The hon. Member for Gravesend acted also unwisely in reading the letter from his constituents in which they said the service would suffer from the appointment. That was a thing that every Member would agree they must set their face against. He could imagine nothing more dangerous than that employees of Government Departments should write letters to the House of Commons threatening that if certain appointments were made the public service would suffer. He supported his hon. friend and thanked him for the firmness he had displayed.
*MR. MORTONdid not think the speech just made had helped the matter much. Though they did not protect the officers too much they ought to see that they had fair play. No one knew anything particular against Captain Graham, but that that gentleman knew nothing about the service. The question he wished to ask and have a reply to was whether it was the fact that there was no person in the service fit to take up this appointment. If the hon. Gentleman said there was not and that they were obliged to bring in a stranger

1131
to fill the office that was another matter. But the hon. Gentleman said just now that the War Office and the Admiralty appointed their officers, and that this House could not discuss the appointment of officers. This House could discuss anybody including the Prime Minister, and it appeared to him that the hon. Gentleman was trying to take away the right of the House to discuss what it paid for. Some hon. Gentlemen thought the House had no right to criticise these gentlemen, but he himself remembered bringing a case before Sir William Harcourt—he hoped the hon. Gentleman
MR. PICKERSGILLsaid he desired to call attention to the case of the out-door staff, whose duties were of a very important character. The conditions of the class whoso interests he was advocating contrasted unfavourably with the conditions under which the clerks worked in the same Depart-
would have the courage to take the same action in this case—and Sir William Harcourt made inquiries, and finding the case was properly stated compelled the officials at Gravesend to put matters back in their original position, and according to the Report used some very strong expressions. He wanted to see fair play and hear a good reason given for this appointment.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 11; Noes, 91. (Division List No. 169.)

AYES.

Ashley, W. W.

Horn by, Sir William Henry

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire

Balcarres, Lord

Kimber, Sir Henry

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

Nield, Herbert

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Gilbert Parker and Mr. Claude Hay.

Craig, Capt, James (Down, E.)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Forster, Henry William

Turnour, Viscount

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Hodge, John

Runciman, Walter

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hudson, Walter

Sears, J. E.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

Idris, T. H. W.

Seaverns, J. H.

Beauchamp, E.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

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

Bellairs, Carlyon

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Sherwell, Arthur James

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

Layland-Barra't, Francis

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Boland, John

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Steadman, W. C.

Bright, J. A.

Lewis, John Herbert

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

Lough, Thomas

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Macpherson, J. T.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Cameron, Robert

M'Callum, John M.

Sutherland, J. E.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Maddison, Frederick

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Cleland, J. W.

Morrell, Philip

Toulmin, George

Clough, William

Newnes, F. (Notts., Bassetlaw)

Ure, Alexander

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

Nicholls, George

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.

Collins, Sir Wm J (S. Pancras, W

Nicholson, Chas, N. (Doncast'r

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

Corbett, C H (Sussex, E Grinst'd

Nolan, Joseph

Watt, Henry A.

Cox, Harold

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

White, George (Norfolk)

Cremer, William Randal

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

Crooks, William

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Duckworth, James

O'Grady, J.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

O'Malley, William

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Everett, R. Lacey

O'Mara, James

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

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Radford, G. H.

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

Grant, Corrie

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

Hart-Davies, T.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

ment. He did not desire to disparage the staff of clerks, but the duties which they performed were generally of a clerical nature. It was the outdoor men who possessed the expert and practical knowledge; it was these men who came into contact with the public, and his case was that their practical, expert and technical

1133
Knowledge and experience in dealing with the public were not adequately recognised or adequately remunerated. The out door staff, compared with the clerks, did not obtain a fair proportion of the higher appointments, especially of the collectorships. The total number of the outdoor 8taff was 1,700, and of the clerks 500. Between March, 1891, and May, 1906, there were seventy-four appointments to collectorships. Of these seventy-four, eleven went to the 1,700 outdoor men, while sixty-three were given to the 500 clerks indoors. He took March, 1891, as the starting point in making that comparison, and he had a particular purpose in taking that date, because in March, 1891, the Treasury issued a Minute which contained certain promises to the outdoor staff, which promises, he submitted, had not been fulfilled. He relied very strongly on the undertaking given in that Minute. He was aware that successive Financial Secretaries to the Treasury had minimised that undertaking, but the words were tolerably strong. He did not desire to state the case at further length, but no doubt his hon. friends would amplify it, and he hoped the Financial Secretary would give a satisfactory reply.
MR. J. M. ROBERTSONsaid he recognised fully the force of the consideration that the demands of civil servants for increased salaries and the pressure that was brought to bear on Members of the House constituted a ground for great caution. The matter was becoming a very serious one from year to year, and would have to be dealt with in a more systematic way than had been the case hitherto. He believed that in view of the multiplicity and seriousness of the complaints from various sections of the service from year to year there would have to be a more systematic overhauling in order to see what could be done. He had some diffidence in taking up the particular matter before the Committee in reference to the demand of this section of the Customs Service. He had looked into the matter as carefully as he could, and he felt very strongly with the hon. Member who had just spoken that there was a very unreasonable disproportion between the salaries and prospects of the outdoor section of the Customs Service and those of the indoor
1134
section. In the majority of cases, in the outdoor section, the prospect was that of rising from £70 a year to £250 a year, while the prospect of the indoor section was that of rising from £70 to £600 a year. Why should there be such a difference between the remuneration of these two sections? Was it seriously suggested that the duties of the indoor clerks were more onerous than those of the outdoor officials, or that they needed to pay a higher salary in order to secure the efficiency of the clerical staff? It constantly happened that in the case of a consignment of goods the indoor clerk had merely to verify a certain form and check the details, while the outdoor officer had to examine the goods, in regard to the passing of which a very large sum of revenue was dependent. It could not be suggested that the work of the officer who checked a large consignment of cigars, for instance, was one calling for less capacity and experience than the work of the clerk indoors. He would say that it was entirely the other way. Surely it was in regard to the outdoor servant that the possibility of corruption was most likely to arise. He associated himself with what had been said in reference to the general incorruptibility of those employed in the Customs Service. In face of that fact it was surely obvious that that class of men ought not to be worse paid than the clerk employed indoors. He hoped the Government would recognise the ordinary principle of paying an adequate salary in positions of trust and thus guard against the possibility of corruption. He did not think that in this case the salary was adequate, and although he had made every inquiry he had not been able to satisfy himself that the claims of these officers had been reasonably met.
SIR F. BANBURYasked, in view of the way in which the Aliens Act was being administered, whether the immigration officers were doing any useful work. The Aliens Act was more or less a dead letter. It was not right that the money of the State should be spent in providing immigration officers to administer an Act which the colleagues of the hon. Gentleman would not allow to be properly worked. Either these officers should be allowed to do the work for

1135
which they were paid, or else they should be withdrawn from the service. He noticed that they had paid £3,000 to Customs officers as rewards for the recovery of goods said to be worth £1,800. He did not think that was a practical way of doing business. He did not approve of the system of rewards. If those officers were not paid sufficient salary they ought to receive an increase, and then the practice of granting rewards would be discontinued.
MR. HART-DAVIESurged that there ought to be a proper inquiry into the grievance of these outdoor officers. All they wanted was that the matter should be fairly investigated by the proper authorities, and there was nothing unreasonable in that demand. At the present time, in comparison with other men in the same branch of the service, the outdoor men were not being treated fairly. He sincerely hoped that the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to give them some assurance that the matter would be looked into in order that the claims of an extremely deserving class of the public service might be fairly considered.
MR. STEWARTsaid he represented a constituency where there was a large number of these preventive men, and he desired to associate himself fully with the statement which had been male by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and others. No pressure had been brought to bear upon him in the matter, and if it had he would not have yielded to it. He had taken considerable pains to investigate the question, and he was wholly at a loss to understand why the onerous and responsible duties connected with the outdoor department of the Customs had been so lightly estimated as compared with the easy task of the indoor servants in the same Department. The hours which these men had to work were in themselves a sufficient claim for consideration at the hands of the Treasury. The ordinary indoor clerk came to work at a fixed time and retired at the usual time, but that was not so in the case of the preventive men. Vessels came into port at all hours of the night, and the preventive men had to leave their home at any hour and in all weathers in order to board those vessels, and yet their remuneration was
1136
lower than the salaries paid to those clerks who had comfortable and easy berths under the shelter of a roof If the matter was investigated he felt sure it would be found that the time had come for a reconsideration. At the present time the men who were responsible for the valuing of goods and the collection of large sums of money on behalf of the Crown were not treated so well as the men who had simply to total up figures and perform the ordinary clerical work of indoor clerks. He trusted that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would be able to give them some assurance that he was fully considering the matter. If they could have that assurance he was ready to leave the matter in the hands of the Government.
VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid he noticed that no less than twenty-one of these preventive men were being employed as assistants to immigration officers who were paid by the Customs Department. The immigration officers themselves were in the service of the Home Office. He thought the time was very appropriate now for inquiring into the whole system of the machinery by which the Aliens Act was being carried out. Personally he thought the Government might congratulate themselves that so little inquiry had been made by the House into the question of the working of the Aliens Act. That was no doubt due to the fact that the number of hon. Members who were anxious to see that Act carried out in a broad and popular spirit was very small. He asked the hon. Gentleman what the duties of these twenty-one preventive men were, and what their relation was to the immigration officers employed by the Home Office. He would like to know further whether it would not be desirable in future, as likely to lead to the better working of the Aliens Act, to have all the men employed in the carrying out of the statute under the same office and the same chiefs. He did not believe that any Member of the Committee wished to see a number of men employed whose services were not required. If the Act had been administered in the way it was asserted on that side of the House to have been administered those assistants were absolutely useless. The Report of the Committee on the employment of reserve soldiers and sailors recommended that the

1137
Government, in selecting men to carry out its work, should, whenever possible, engage those men. He was glad to see from a footnote that there were at present 752 pensioners of the Army, Navy, and Royal Irish Constabulary in the Department. He wished to know whether it had been the policy of the Customs Department to engage men who had been in these services, and, if not, whether the hon. Gentleman would consider the advisability of adopting such a policy in future.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that the claims of the outdoor staff in the lower ranks of the civil service were entitled to consideration. Looking at the question from the point of view of business men, he thought they would be of opinion that the outdoor staff were under paid and that they suffered from disabilities which ought to be remedied. He supported their claims to consideration on grounds which had not been put before the Committee up to now. He believed that comparisons between the indoor and the outdoor staffs were bound to be fallacious. He supported the claims of the outdoor staff entirely on their own merits. The claims were well founded in themselves, and they did not need to be contrasted with the conditions in any other branch of the service. A suggestion was thrown out two years ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when a similar discussion took place, that questions as to pay, increments, maximum, and the general conditions of employment in all these Government Departments should be left to a small Committee of men appointed by the Government of the day—a Committee perfectly independent of approaches from the outside by people who had votes to give—in order that these matters might be taken entirely out of the arena of politics and possible debate in the House. That was an excellent suggestion, and he had hoped that something would have been done before now to prevent the time of the Committee when considering the Estimates being wasted in such discussions. So long as that suggestion was not carried out hon. Members must be excused if they from time to time brought forward the case of any particular body of men. Having regard to the increase in rents, rates, cost of living, and the expenses necessary to keep
1138
up a respectable appearance, it was practically impossible for a man with a wife and family to carry out his duties to the State upon a wage of less than £3 a week. He hoped the Financial Secretary would consider the claims of these men.
MR. SEAVERNScalled attention to the case of the assistant clerks in the statistical department of the Customs. He had no desire to make any attack on the Financial Secretary to the Treasury or on the officials of the Customs. His desire was to enlist the personal interest of the hon. Gentleman in this particular class of clerks, and to ascertain whether in his opinion their present status was a satisfactory and proper one. He had had an opportunity of consulting with some of these men personally, and they seemed to him to be a deserving and exceptionally intelligent body of young men. Their grievances were two. The first was that they were obliged to work an excessive amount of overtime in order to carry out their duties in the department. His hon. friend had given in answer to a Question some particulars as to the overtime actually worked in that office, and he had distinguished between compulsory and optional overtime. The hon. Gentleman would agree with him that the overtime was very excessive. He understood that for all practical purposes the entire overtime was compulsory. The difficulty in connection with the matter was that the overtime interfered with what the young men desired to do in the way of preparing for superior examinations, and that was a grievance which deserved sympathetic attention. Their other complaint, which he looked upon as more serious, was that having gone into the office on the understanding, and the virtual promise, that after four years service they would be eligible for promotion to the second division, that understanding had not been carried out. His hon. friend had stated in answer to a Question that in no single case had there been any promotion to the second division among these clerks, although the class had been in existence for ten years. According to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury there were in the department 63 clerks eligible for promotion. He submitted that that state of things did not conduce to enthusiastic work

1139
on the part of the clerks. If his hon. friend would look into the matter sympathetically he would be very much obliged.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that he had been looking into this matter and found that the whole of the expenditure on the Aliens Act under this Vote was returned by the Home Office, and the discussion should take place on that Vote.
SIR F. BANBURYasked whether it would be in order upon this Vote to discuss the administration of the Aliens Act.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that the administration of the Aliens Act was under the control of the Home Office and could not be discussed upon this Vote.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid that the men employed in the administration of the Aliens Act were paid by the Home Office. A certain number of men accustomed to Customs work were lent to the Home Office for services in connection with the immigration of aliens The hon. Gentleman must remember that the first estimate of the expenditure in connection with the administration of the Aliens Act was £70,000 per annum, and the authorities were trying to keep the cost well within that sum. A question had been asked as to the employment of reserve soldiers and sailors. They had always made it a habit in the Customs Department to employ as many reserve soldiers and sailors as possible; and at present there were 730 men so employed; but it was impossible to appoint a very large number of men who might be called out for service on the outbreak of war. More over, they did not wish to interfere with the ordinary promotion of the Civil servants who had devoted the whole of their time to the service. They had, however, attempted to employ as many reserve soldiers and sailors as they possibly could.
MR. CLAUDE HAY: How many reserve men have you employed?
MR. RUNCIMANsaid he could not say at the moment. In reference to the rewards to Customs Officers, the smuggled goods consisted mainly of tobacco, some of which was sent to the
1140
lunatic asylums, and the rest to Kew Gardens for use in the glass houses. As to the question of outdoor men, he confessed that he found a difficulty in explaining the present situation. A certain amount of blocking had occurred owing to the increase in the number of duties imposed since 1901. An increase of tariff led not only to an increased cost of collection, but to an increase in the number of the staff employed. Therefore, in 1901 there was a temporary boom in the promotion of the clerks, and also a temporary slump in the examining officers' promotion owing to the introduction of a certain number of young clerks. These two changes had done something to make a great difference between the indoor and outdoor staffs. At present the disparity between the two was greater than had been anticipated, but he hoped that by some arrangement they would succeed in reducing that disparity. He could not, however, make any definite announcement of policy. He could assure his hon. friend that he was doing all he could to examine into the case of the statistical clerks. Most of these clerks were young men; and lately they had sent in a memorial to the Treasury which contained this sentence—
"We have no reason to doubt that your Lordships are aware that you have committed a breach of faith."
He must point out that if any class of public servants were to begin their claim for improved conditions of service by levelling a charge of bad faith on the part of the Treasury whom they memorialised, it was obvious that they prejudiced their case; and he would suggest to his hon. friend that he should convey to those memorialists an intimation that if they wished to have their claim considered sympathetically they should withdraw that charge of bad faith.
MR. SEAVERNSsaid that the case as placed before him was, he thought, put with great moderation.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid that the memorial to the Treasury contained a sentence which alleged a breach of faith, and he renewed his suggestion to the hon. Member that he should ask his friends to withdraw such a statement.
LORD BALCARRESsaid that a suggestion had been made that some Committee or permanent Commission should be set up before which those complicated questions in regard to wages and conditions of employment in the different Departments of State should be impartially considered and decided. That was a subject which ought to receive the attention of the Treasury. The hon. Member for Glasgow had said that no pressure had been brought to bear upon him in regard to the question, but every Member knew that there were lots of people who brought pressure to bear upon them in regard to such matters. Although no pressure might be brought to bear upon hon. Members, a good deal of unconscious pressure was exercised upon the House. He did not represent a constituency which was largely supported by Government expenditure, so that he was absolutely impartial, but if he had 200 or 300 men in his constituency who were receiving Government pay there would be an unconscious pressure upon his mind to get up and urge the Secretary to the Treasury to make concessions to them. They never heard of questions being raised about bluejackets' wages or soldiers' wages. Why? He did not know how many bluejackets there were, but he believed there were something like 120,000, and they were as good servants to the State as anyone else, but they did not hear this kind of question raised on the Vote for their wages. Again the question of the pay of the Army had never been raised except by the Government. There was something unwholesome in the fact that they had to discuss the rates of pay of those portions of the public service who had votes while they were not called upon to deal with the same class of question in regard to soldiers and sailors, who had not got votes. He thought that some effort should be made by the Treasury to take the matter out of the hands of Members of Parliament and to remove from their shoulders the responsibility of saying "No" or "Yes" to the requests with which they were too familiar. He thought the Civil Service would gain rather than lose by having their case considered, not on the floor of the House of Commons, but by a body of men who would understand their position far more clearly than Members of the House of Commons. Members of
1142
the House would welcome the removal from their shoulders of that responsibility just as much as they did the removal from their sphere of action by the Postmaster-General of questions of patronage in regard to sub-post masterships. He hoped that before the session ended the Secretary to the Treasury would give them an assurance that the subject was under the consideration of himself and his colleagues.
MR. CLAUDE HAYurged the claims of the abstractors in the customs to better conditions of service.
Vote agreed to.
6. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,469,300, 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 Inland Revenue Department."
SIR F. BANBURYsaid there was an extraordinary increase in the cost of publishing and providing copies of poor rates for income-tax purposes. For this purpose £24,000 was put down as against £4,000 last year. He supposed there was some explanation, but if a satisfactory one was not forthcoming he would move to reduce the Vote.
MR. RUNCIMANexplained that the increase was due to the quinquennial assessment coming in 1907–8.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he understood from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in consequence of the heavy charges and work, he did not propose to take a quinquennial assessment.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the quinquennial assessment would be taken in 1908–9, and therefore he did not think it was necessary to take this money now, because if it was not used this year it would have to be surrendered and go into the Exchequer, balances, unless the hon. Gentleman followed the policy of the Secretary of State for War, who devoted £100,000 to the new Army scheme. He did not think

1143
the explanation of the hon. Gentleman was sufficient, and unless a better one was forthcoming he would move a reduction and divide the Committee, as he did not think it was proper that such a demand should be made.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid if they did not need the money they would have to surrender it, but he thought the money would be needed.
SIR F. BANBURYmoved the reduction of the Vote by £20,000 so as to grant only the sum which was taken last year.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,449,300, be granted for the said Service."—(Sir. F. Banbury.)
*MR. MORTONthought some explanation should be given in regard to the
Original Question again proposed.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he desired to call attention to what in his opinion
1144
question raised by the hon. Member for the City of London. But he required a little information with regard to the increase of £8,900 under Head E, Commuted Allowances, etc. How had that increase occurred during the present year? He desired, also, information as to the increase in Superannuation and other charges under Head T, of £13,169. It was very difficult to see how they were to practice economy in the face of such considerable increases.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid the explanation of the first Question of the hon. Member was to be found on pages 41 and 42 of the Estimates. The increases under Head T were due to natural causes.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 10; Noes, 73. (Division List No. 170.)

AYES.

Ashley, W. W.

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Frederick Banbury and Mr. Claude Hay.

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt Hn. Sir H.

Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

Balcarres, Lord

Hunt, Rowland

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare.

Bilker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Radford, G. H.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

Barnes, G. N.

Hodge, John

Ridsdale, E. A.

Beauchamp, E.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Hudson, Walter

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

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

Idris, T. H. W.

Runciman, Walter

Berridge, T. H. D.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

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

Kekewich, Sir George

Seaverns, J. H.

Boland, John

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Bright, J. A.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Steadman, W. C.

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

Lewis, John Herbert

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Lough, Thomas

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Cameron, Robert

Maclean, Donald

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Macpherson, J. T.

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Cleland, J. W.

M'Callum, John M.

Toulmin, George

Clough, William

Maddison, Frederick

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W

Morrell, Philip

Watt, Henry A.

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

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Corbett, C H (Sussex, E Grinst'd

Newnes, F. (Notts., Bassetlaw)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Cox, Harold

Nicholls, George

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

Cremer, William Randal

Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r)

Crooks, William

Nolan, Joseph

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

Duckworth, James

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Everett, R. Lacey

O'Grady, J.

was nothing less than a scandal, namely, the inquisitorial proceedings of the Inland Revenue Officers in regard to the Returns made by income-tax payers

1145
in the form of a statutory declaration. The tax had to be paid months before it was due, and in many eases it was paid year after year through the same office. The action of the Inland Revenue Department in this respect was not only offensive, but seemed to impute, if not to assert, that those who made returns by means of statutory declarations were, in fact, liars. Another aspect of the question was that of economy. An immense staff was required to address these demand notes, and it was felt by many income-tax payers who took the utmost pains to make a careful return and who invited the authorities to in spect their books in order to see no error had crept in, that the proceedings on
Original Question again proposed.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid it would be in the recollection of the hon. Gentleman that the supervising officers of the Inland Revenue had forwarded a memorial asking for a Parliamentary inquiry into the conditions of their service and their pay. He believed that last year some trifling
1146
those demand notes, were not necessary. He thought it was high time now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer contemplated a new method of collection that he should proceed on the principle, not that most men were liars, but that most income-tax payers made a true return. In order to draw attention to the matter and to ensure that there should be some record he moved to reduce the Vote by £100.
Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,469,200, be granted for the said service."—(Mr. Claude Hay.)
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 7; Noes, 69. (Division List No. 171.)

AYES.

Ashley, W. W.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Claude Hay and Mr. Watson Rutherford.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hunt, Rowland

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

NOES

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Hodge, John

Ridsdale, E. A.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Beauchamp, E.

Hudson, Walter

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Idris, T. H. W.

Runciman, Walter

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

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Kekewich, Sir George

Seaverns, J. H.

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Rmf'd)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Boland, John

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Steadman, W. C.

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

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Lewis, John Herbert

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Cameron, Robert

Lough, Thomas

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Maclean, Donald

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Cleland, J. W.

Macpherson, J. T.

Toulmin, George

Clough, William

M'Callum, John M.

Verney, F. W.

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

Maddison, Frederick

Ward, John(Stoke-upon-Trent

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

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Watt, Henry A.

Corbett, C H (Sussex, E Grimst'd

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

Cox, Harold

Nicholls, George

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax

Cremer, William Randal

Nicholson, Charles N(Doncast'r

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

Crooks, William

Nolan, Joseph

Duckworth, James

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Everett, R. Lacy

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Radford, G. H.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

concession was made to them in matters of service as to which they had made strong but respectful representations. Would the hon. Gentleman entertain the representations which had been made, or would he refuse to re-open the matter?
MR. HUNTsaid that, as he understood, these officers

1147
were examining officers who were working an hour a day longer than others in the Department, and while their work was harder their pay was much less. They asked for a Parliamentary inquiry, and, as far as he could make out, they certainly deserved one. They had no Minister to look after them and their interests, and he thought their pay was certainly not sufficient for the hard work they did. As he understood, promotion in other sections of the service was more rapid than it was among examining officers. He thought that those officers had a very strong case, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would see his way to allowing the inquiry.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid he did not know exactly the form of inquiry which the hon. Gentleman referred to.
MR. CLAUDE HAY: A Select Committee.
MR. RUNCIMANreminded the hon. Gentleman that his predecessor in office had had this matter under his consideration; he had gone into the whole of the claims put before him, and had arrived at a decision. He knew that the hon. Gentleman would be delighted to divide the Committee on the matter, but he would point out that there could not be anything worse for the organisation of the Inland Revenue than to have every year fresh demands for reconsidering decisions. It would lead to nothing more nor less than the absolute disorganisation of the service. The hon. Gentleman must be well aware that his predecessor had gone fully into the case, and if it was suggested that because he had been newly appointed Financial Secretary he would upset the decision of his hon. friend, they were much mistaken. He certainly could not hold out any hope of reopening this case immediately after a decision had been arrived at.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid the grievances of these men had been acknowledged on both sides of the House. He was glad to have it on record that the request to reconsider the matter had met with a blank refusal.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid it had met with no blank refusal, and the hon.
1148
Member had no right so to represent what he had said. He could not imagine anything more detrimental to the public service than pulling up the system by the roots every twelve months in this way. There was no justification whatever for the statement of the hon. Member that he had met these men with a blank refusal.
MR. HUNTsaid it was a matter of justice to these men, and there ought to be an inquiry.
Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS VI.
7. £373,400, to complete the sum for Superannuation and Retired Allowances.
8. £368, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £139, 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 Hospitals and Infirmaries, and certain Miscellaneous, Charitable, and other Allowances in Ireland, including sundry Grants in Aid."
CAPTAIN CRAIGinquired as to the prospect of another Committee of Inquiry into hospitals already receiving grants-in-aid in Dublin. He did not wish to criticise the grants at present made, but he would like to know, seeing that fifty-two years had elapsed since they were chosen.
Notice taken that forty Members were not present; Committee counted, and forty Members not being present,
Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.
House counted, and forty Members not being present, the House was adjourned at twenty-eight minutes after Seven of the clock.
Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes after Seven o'clock till Thursday, 23rd May.