Commons Sitting of 20 February 1908

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

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Rills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order 62 has been complied with, viz: Derby Gas Bill; Louth and East Coast Railway (Transfer) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS].
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in respect of the Bills comprised in the List reported-by the Chairman of Ways and Means as intended to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in the following case, viz.: Alliance and other Assurance and Insurance Companies.

PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.: Alliance and other Assurance and Insurance Companies [Lords].
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS].
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in respect of the

977
Bills introduced pursuant to the provisions of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, and which the Chairman of Ways and Means had directed to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with in the following case, viz: North British and Mercantile Insurance Company (Ocean Marine Insurance Transfer, etc.).
And they have certified that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in the following case, viz.: Leith Burgh.

PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS [LORDS].
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills that in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.: Leith Burgh [Lords].
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

DOVER GRAVING DOCKS BILL.
"To authorise the construction and maintenance of graving docks and quays and other works in connection therewith at Dover, in the county of Kent," presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
LOWER THAMES (GRAYS) DOCK BILL.
"To incorporate the Lower Thames (Grays) Dock Company to authorise and improvement of the channel of the River Thames and the construction of a clock, a railway, and other works in the counties of Essex and Kent; and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.

MADRAS RAILWAY COMPANY (PURCHASE) [ANNUITIES].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed "That it is expedient to authorise the creation of Annuities to be charged on and payable out of the Revenues of India in lieu of the sum of money
978
amounting to twelve million eight hundred and nineteen thousand five hundred and fifty-eight pounds, six shillings, and three pence, agreed upon for the purchase by the Secretary of State in Council of India of the undertaking of the Madras Railway Company and the payment of any costs and expenses incurred by the said Secretary of State under any Act of the present session for vesting the said undertaking in the said Secretary of State in Council of India, and also any costs, charges, and expenses of obtaining and passing the said Act not provided by the surplus profits arising from the said undertaking for the half-year ending the 31st day of December, 1907."—(Sir Henry Fowler.)
MR. ALEXANDER CROSSasked for an explanation of the circumstances under which this transfer had taken place and the provision made for the future working of the line.
*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Sir HENRY FOWLER,): It is merely a formal Resolution. The details could be discussed in Committee on the Bill.
MR. ALEXANDER CROSSthought the policy of the Government with regard to Indian Railways was one which the House ought to consider, although that perhaps was hardly the occasion to enter into a long argument with reference to the facilities with which capital was invested on railways in India.
*SIR HENRY FOWLERexplained that this was the last purchase of what were known as the guaranteed Indian railways. Originally, the old railways were started by separate companies under guarantee by the Secretary of State to whom was reserved the option to exercise the right of purchase at the end of certain periods by cash payments-down or by way of annuities. That policy had been regularly pursued by every Secretary of State, and all the great Indian Railways originally guaranteed have been purchased with the exception of this one. Whether this policy was to the financial advantage of the Government of India might be a matter for discussion, but the Secretary of

979
State was advised by the most competent authorities that the arrangement made in this instance would result in a saving to the Government of India of about one and a quarter millions. The revenues of India were perfectly well protected, the shareholders were satisfied, the Indian Office was satisfied that it was a very good bargain for the Government, while no burden was thrown on the British taxpayer. The Resolution was merely formal, the Standing Order providing that no charge should be imposed on the revenues of India without the matter being submitted to the House.
SIR HENRY KIMBERwas glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that this was in the interest of India. No doubt this was merely a formal Resolution and his hon. friend would find a full explanation in the Bill itself. This was, however, the constitutional method by which the House was called upon to confirm the financial arrangement.
*MR. REESsaid that not only was no charge imposed on Indian revenues, but they were saved a payment of 5 per cent. on a very large sum of money. The objection raised could only proceed from a misunderstanding.
MR. BOWLESthought the Committee was in some difficulty in dealing with this matter which was one of great importance. As he understood it the House was practically asked to vote—["No"]—well, not to vote directly, but to sanction the borrowing under Government guarantee of £12,000,000. They were told it would result in a great saving to India, but he would like to know how the money was to be borrowed. He understood the usual practice was to borrow half in India and half in this country. It was surely a fair question to ask was that practice to be followed in this case.
And, it being Three of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee Report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

PETITIONS.
  CLUBS' REGULATION.
  Petition from Bradford, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSED PREMISES (EXCLUSION OF CHILDREN).
  Petitions for legislation: From Acton; Bideford; Brighton; Children's Protection League (fifty); Forest Hill; Grafton; Highbury; Huntington; and Newcastle-on-Tyne; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Barnoldswick; Belper; Bournemouth; Bradford; Bury; Choppington; Chorley; Coalville (two); Colne; Colyton; Croydon; Crystal Palace; Darlington; Deptford; Derby; Frenchay; Hapton; Heaton Moor; Heywook; Hinckley; Hindley; Horsham; Huddersfield; Knutsford; Leeds; Lewes; London (two); Newcastle; Newport: Norwich; Oldbury; Old Trafford; Oxford; Park Lane; Poole; Preston; Ringwood; Rotherham; Sale; Selly Park; Shepton Mallet; Southampton; Southport; South Shields; Stand; Stockton; Stratford; Sudbury; Tavistock; Tunbridge Wells; Walthamstow; Washington Station (two); Woodgate; and Yeovil; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Regulations and Conditions affecting the recognition by the Board of Education under Section 48 of The Elementary Education Act, 1876, of Elementary Schools in England, excluding Wales and Monmouthshire (being neither Public Elementary Schools nor Schools applying for recognition under any other Act of Parliament), as Certified Efficient Schools [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES.)
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3959 and 3960 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Johnstown Estate, co. Meath.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether James Casserley and James Duffy, have with others, memorialised the Estates Commissioners for holdings on the Johnstown estate, county Meath; and whether their application will receive favourable consideration.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The Question appears to relate to the estate of J. P. Kearney, which was for sale in the Land Judge's Court, and which has been purchased by the Estates Commissioners. The memorial alluded to in the Question has been referred to the inspector who is dealing with the estate, and a copy of the Question will also be forwarded to him for his information.

  Master's First Aid Certificates.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state what is the minimum respective curricula requisite for obtaining a master's or mate's first-aid certificate under St. John and St. Andrew Ambulance.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) In order to qualify for examination for the certificates of proficiency in first aid granted by the St. John Ambulance Association a candidate must attend at least four of a course of five lectures, each of two hours duration. In the case of the St. Andrew Ambulance Association the candidate must attend at least eight out of a course of twelve lectures of one hour and a half's duration. The syllabus of the lectures under the two associations covers practically the same ground.

  Woman Suffrage Bill.
  MR. CLOUGH: To ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the first Order of the Day was not definitely disposed of before Five o'clock either on Friday, 7th February, or Friday, 14th February, 1908, he will give the House the opportunity to suspend the Five o'clock Rule
  982
  on Friday, 28th February, 1908, in order to arrive at a decision with regard to the first Order for that Day, viz., the Second Reading of the Women's Enfranchisement Bill.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell Banner-man.) No, Sir, the Government do not see any reason for taking this course.

  Poor Brothers of the Charterhouse.
  MR. RADFORD: To ask the hon. Member for the Elland Division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether he is aware that the Poor Brothers of the Charterhouse, all of whom are of the age of sixty years and upwards, are required by the regulations of the governors to attend chapel service twice on Sunday and once every day of the week, and that they are liable to a fine of 1s. for absence on Sunday and 3d. for absence on a week-day; and whether he will consider whether any steps can be taken to put a stop to this system of compulsory conformity.
  (Answered by Mr. Trevelyan.) The regulations under which the fines alluded to in the Question are permitted to be imposed are made under the Act of 3 Charles I. and the scheme of 3rd December, 1872 regulating the charity. The former master, Dr. Haig-Brown, used to enforce them, but the present master, Canon Jelf, who has held the post for a year, has not yet attempted to enforce them. It may, therefore, per-perhaps be hoped that the practice of fining for non-attendance at chapel will fall into disuse, without any outside interference, as inconsistent with modern ideas of the conduct of denominational institutions.

  West Ham Workhouse.
  MR. THORNE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the overcrowding of the West Ham Union workhouse to the extent of 272 inmates; and if he intends taking any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am aware that the number of inmates of the workhouse is about 272 in excess of that for which it is certified. Two old schoolrooms have, however, been converted into

  983
  dormitories and are in occupation. They take eighty-three of this number, thus reducing the excess to 189. The old schools are about to be used as part of the workhouse, and thus further accommodation will be provided. One block, which will take fifty beds, will be occupied in a few days, and five other blocks, each taking the same number, will be brought into use in succession as speedily as possible.

  Unemployment.
  MR. CLYNES: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received resolutions passed by distress committees and local government councils, in addition to the opinions expressed by the Association of Municipal Corporations, urging the necessity for further legislation with financial provisions for dealing with unemployment; whether he has observed that, following the growth of unemployment as attested by official figures, public disturbances and demonstrations of distressed workers are increasing in various centres; and whether, therefore, he can suggest to the Poor Law Commission the necessity of reporting at once anything they may have to recommend on the subject of providing work, with a view to this House taking immediate steps to meet the urgent demand for employment.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have received resolutions of the kind referred to in the Question, and I am aware that some demonstrations have taken place. I will bring the suggestion of my hon. friend under the notice of the Royal Commission, but I am afraid that it will not be practicable for them to report in time for legislation during the present Session.

  Motor Imports.
  MR. FELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board how many of 76,567 private motor cars and motor cycles licensed in the year 1907 were of foreign manufacture.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am unable to say. I observe that the Returns of the Board of Trade give the number of motor cars and motor cycles imported in 1907 as 4,819 and 1,770 respectively.

  Employment in the Licensing Trade.
  MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the total number of 258,654 persons, enumerated by the General Report of the Census, page 126, as being occupied in England and Wales as maltsters in breweries and distilleries, as wine and spirit merchants, as keepers of inns and hotels, as publicans, beer sellers, and cider dealers, as cellar men, beer bottlers, barmen, and barmaids, and others engaged in the service of inns, hotels, and eating-houses, includes all persons engaged in the making or selling of intoxicating liquors; and, if not what additional numbers are shown by the Census to be employed directly in these trades.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am informed by the Registrar General that the 258,654 persons referred to in the Question include all those who definitely returned themselves as employed in making intoxication liquors, but that the number probably includes some persons employed in temperance hotels, and, therefore, having no connection with the making or sale of such liquors. Many persons who are engaged in the storage and distribution of intoxicating liquors and in clerical work connected with the sale and distribution of these liquors are included under such headings as draymen, carters, warehousemen, commercial clerks, and commercial travellers. Persons, such as grocers and confectioners, who hold licences and sell intoxicating liquors as a subsidiary part of their business are included, together with their employees, under the headings grocers, confectioners, etc. The total number of persons employed in these trades cannot be shown in the Census, as each person can be classified under one heading only, the principal occupation being selected in each case.

  Foot and Mouth Disease in Midlothian.
  LORD DALMENY: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, with reference to the recent Midlothian and District Foot-and-Mouth Disease Order, and having regard to the extent of the county of Midlothian and

  985
  to the fact that the outlying districts of the county are unaffected by disease, he will issue an order excluding from the infected area West Calder and similar centres, and thus placing them on the same footing as Edinburgh and Leith for slaughtering purposes.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) We issued an Order yesterday which will place West Calder and similar centres on the same footing as Edinburgh and Leith for slaughtering purposes. It will come into operation on Monday next. The necessity for keeping West Calder under stringent restrictions is due to the fact that manure from the infected byre was deposited in that parish.

  Milk Blended Butter.
  MR. C. E. PRICE: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the words milk-blended butter are to be used in the Reports of the Monthly Accounts of Trade and Navigation; and whether, in view of the pledge given by him to Parliament on 26th July, 1907, that the words milk-blended butter would disappear and would cease to exist as a name except in the Act of Parliament, he will take steps to prevent the words milk-blended butter being so used.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) In making the statement to which my hon. friend refers, I had in mind the manner in which the article would be dealt in commercially. I am afraid that it will be difficult always to avoid the use for official purposes of the generic expression which was necessarily employed in the Act of last Session, but I will see whether any arrangement can be made to meet the wishes of my hon. friend so far as the Monthly Trade and Navigation Accounts are concerned.
  MR. C. E. PRICE: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, how many applications have been made to the Board for the registration of names for the article formerly known as milk-blended butter; how many have been sanctioned; and what are they.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) Perhaps my hon. friend will allow me
  986
  to refer him to the Answer I gave to a similar Question addressed to me by the hon. Member for West Limerick on the 18th instant.

  Australian Naval Defence.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will lay the Correspondence which has passed between the Admiralty and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia in regard to the proposed reconstitution of the Australian naval forces, or, if these Papers cannot yet be laid, whether he can give the House any information on the subject.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Correspondence on the subject referred to by the right hon. Gentleman is still proceeding, and an Admiralty letter having an important bearing on the question was sent out by the Secretary of State for the Colonies by the last mail on the 14th instant. Until this letter has been received by the Commonwealth Government it would be inexpedient that any correspondence should be laid upon the Table.

  Rosyth.
  MR. FELL: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if any provision is being made it, the contracts for works at Rosyth that the granite and other stone to be supplied shall be quarried in the United Kingdom, or, failing that, if he will make it a condition that, if any foreign granite or stone should be used, British trade union rates of wages must be paid to the workmen who quarry such stone.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The contract particulars are not sufficiently advanced for any statement to be made on the subject now.

  Pneumonia in the Navy at Chatham.
  MR. CLYNES: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the fact that an epidemic of sickness, chiefly pneumonia, has broken out amongst the men in His Majesty's Navy at present at Chatham; and, if so, whether he can state the number of men who have died, and also to what is the cause of the epidemic ascribed.

  987
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The only sickness at Chatham that partakes of the nature of an epidemic is influenza, which is prevalent there as elsewhere, and this has been followed in a few instances by pneumonia. Four men have died within the last fortnight of this latter disease. No cause can be ascribed for the outbreak of influenza, which is apparently seasonal.

  Bylchau School, Denbighshire.
  MR. BEIDGEMAN: To ask the President of the Board of Education if he will state what steps, if any, the Board of Education have taken to satisfy themselves of the necessity for a new school at Bylchau, Denbighshire, as required by Section 8 of The Education Act, 1902 after an objection has been duly lodged.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Board satisfied itself by a careful examination of the evidence furnished by the local education authority and by the inspector as to the existence in the district of a real demand, on the part of parents, for the establishment of a council school within the parish of Bylchau. No facts were alleged in the appeal subsequently received which were not outweighed by the evidence already in the Board's possession.

  Departmental Administration.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer when the promised Committee to inquire into the status of the Board of Trade, Local Government Board, and Board of Agriculture will be set up, and what will be the composition of such Committee.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I stated that the inquiry would not be by a Committee, but would be undertaken by the Government itself. I am not at present in a position to make any further statement on the subject.

  Licensing Bill.
  MR. LEIF JONES: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what day he proposes to introduce the Licensing Bill.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I propose to make a statement at the close of Questions.

  Indian Famine Code.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will consider the advisability of suggesting to the Government of India that the Famine Code should be known as the Famine Prevention Code, and that a similar alteration should be made in the nomenclature relating to this subject, in order to the correction of misapprehensions widely entertained in this country regarding the prevention of famine in India.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I will call the attention of the Government of India to the hon. Member's suggestion, and they will no doubt give it their consideration.

  Judicial Administration in India.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India what proportion of the total number of civil and magisterial cases tried in India is disposed of by judges and magistrates who are natives of India and what proportion by Judges and magistrates who do not answer to that description.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) It is impossible to give with accuracy the information for which the hon. Member asks, as the judicial statistics do not classify the work of the Courts according to the nationality of the presiding officers; but it is safe to say that by far the larger number of cases are disposed of by Indian Judges.

  Indian Co-operative Credit Societies.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether statistics are available showing for different provinces the operations of co-operative credit societies; and whether the organisation of co-operative agricultural credit has already been sufficiently developed to be of actual assistance to cultivators in areas affected by the agricultural depression at present existing in parts of India.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The hon. Member will find the statistics which he desires in the Reports on the subject published annually by the several local governments. I shall be happy to supply him with copies of the 1906–7

  989
  Reports as they reach me from India, if he cares to have them. As to the second part of the Question I have no information. The Reports for 1907–8 will doubtless deal with the point.

  Censorship of Indian Press.
  MR. DILLON: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the case of Bhaskas Vishnu Fadke, editor of the Vihari newspaper, Bombay, who was recently sentenced to two years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300 for two articles published in his newspaper; and whether, in view of the statement by the prisoner at his trial, he will recommend the Government of India to consider this case with a view to a mitigation of the sentence.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I find that the editor in question was tried by a Judge of the High Court of Bombay and a jury, the majority being Indians. He was found guilty by the jury with only one dissentient, and sentenced to two years simple imprisonment and a fine of £20. He had previously been warned, but persisted in the publication of the articles complained of. In these circumstances I am not prepared to take the action suggested by the hon. Member, which would be entirely contrary to practice.

  Kenmare Evicted Tenant.
  MR. N. J. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Estates Commissioners have power to buy out a grabber on an evicted farm in order to reinstate the original tenant in his own home; and, if so, if they will proceed at once to deal with such grabbers on the Kenmare estate, especially as the landlord has agreed to facilitate the reinstatement of tenants in every way possible.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) I refer the hon. Member to Section I (3) of The Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, which provides that no tenanted land shall be acquired compulsorily which is in the possession or occupation of a bona fide tenant using or cultivating the same as an ordinary farmer in accordance with
  990
  proper methods of husbandry. The cases of evicted tenants on the Kenmare estate are at present the subject of inquiry and consideration by the Commissioners.

  Kenmare Estate, Kerry.
  MR. J. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Congested District Board have placed before the Estates Commissioners the offer made to them as to the sale of the congested districts on the Kenmare estate, County Kerry; whether they have also handed over to them any reports or inquiries made by them; and whether the Estates Commissioners have taken, or propose to take, any steps to deal with the congested portions of the estate in accordance with the powers vested in them.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The reply to the first two parts of the Question is in the negative. No proceedings for the sale of the congested portion of the Kenmare estate have been instituted before the Estate Commissioners, and they have therefore taken no steps in the matter.

  Greenisland Estate—Mr. Small's Report.
  MR. DILLON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, why a copy of Mr. Small's Report has been refused to the tenants on the Greenisland estate by the Earl of Shaftesbury; and on what grounds a letter was written by the Estates Commissioners, on 22nd December, 1906, to the solicitors of the Earl of Shaftesbury, undertaking to exclude from the sale any tenants who would sign agreements to pay twenty-six years purchase.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The practice of the Estates Commissioners is to treat the reports of their inspectors as confidential, and following this practice the Commissioners refused to furnish to the tenants a copy of the Report of the inspector referred to in the Question. The Commissioners fully inquired into the reasons why certain of the tenants on the Shaftesbury estate refused to sign purchase agreements on the same terms as those agreed to by the other tenants and they are of opinion that there is no

  991
  sufficient reason for refusing to proceed with the sale to those tenants who have agreed to purchase.

  Sale of the Greenisland Estate.
  MR. DILLON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the negotiations for sale of the Greenisland estate of the Earl of Shaftesbury, in which the tenants are called upon to pay over twenty-six years purchase of their present rents, which invested at 3¾ with the bonus would tiring in 109 per cent. of the gross rental; whether the Commissioners are bound to sanction such prices without inquiry; and, if so, whether they are bound to secure a bonus to the landlord by declaring the holdings in question an estate.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The advances referred to in the Question come within the limits of the zones, and as such the Estates Commissioners are bound to make the advances. The Commissioners, following the decision of the Court of Appeal, hold that, so long as the prices are within the zones, the fact that such prices are high is not in itself a reason for refusing to declare the lands to be an estate. There may be other reasons which would justify the Commissioners in refusing to declare lands to be an estate for the purposes of sale by landlord to tenant direct although the prices are within the zones, such as that the estate is congested, or that the holdings are held in rundale, or are uneconomic. No such reason, however, existed in the case of Lord Shaftesbury's estate, and the Commissioners, therefore, felt bound to declare the lands to be an estate.

  Baunraugh Hurling Tournament.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the employees of Lord Gough, Lough Cutra Castle, Gort, held a hurling tournament quite recently at Baunraugh, near Gort, with an intimidatory purpose; whether the walls of the farm of Mr. James Mahoney, an annuitant tenant, were levelled to the ground on the occasion; and what action the police authorities have taken in the matter.
  992
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The police authorities have ascertained that on 22nd December a party of about 100 men assembled at Baunraugh for the ostensible purpose of playing hurley, but that after playing a few minutes they proceeded to level about 170 yards of a stone fence on Mr. Mahoney's farm. So far as the police have been able to ascertain, only two of the party were in the employment of Lord Gough. The police have been unable to obtain evidence which would justify proceedings in the case.

  Shooting Outrage in County Galway.
  MR. O'MALLEY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that Captain the Hon. J. Campbell, eldest son of Lord Stratheden and Campbell, when out cock-shooting with three others on his property in Moycullen, County Galway, on the 6th instant, deliberately shot dead five or six goats, the property of his tenants; whether in this outrage he was aided by a Mr. De Caen, whose father was recently appointed a magistrate for the district; whether the police have reported this outrage to the authorities; and, if so, what steps will be taken to punish the perpetrators.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The police have no direct knowledge of this matter, but they have ascertained on inquiry that the facts are substantially as stated in the Question. It is alleged that the goats, of which there were a large number, were trespassing in Lord Campbell's plantation and doing considerable injury. The case is not, in my opinion, one for criminal proceedings, and it has not been reported as an outrage. Of course the owners of the goats could take civil proceedings if so advised. The police, however, have learnt that Captain Campbell has offered to compensate the owners, and has already given compensation for two of the goats.

  M'Cartie O'Leary Estate, Millstreet, Cork.
  MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a number of householders and business people in the town of Millstreet, county Cork, have signed agreements for

  993
  the purchase of their premises which form a, portion of the M'Cartie O'Leary estate; have these purchase agreements been filed with the Estates Commissioners; is he aware that middle landlords in the town have signed agreements in respect of a number of houses to the exclusion of the direct occupiers of them; will he state what facilities will be afforded to the occupying tenants to purchase in each instance; and what steps will be taken to redeem the interests of the middle landlords.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) Agreements for the purchase of holdings on the estate in question were lodged with the Estates Commissioners on 26th July, 11)07. The agreements include over forty cases of proposed purchase of plots in the town of Millstreet. The question of the exclusion of sub-tenants will be fully considered by the Estates Commissioners when they come to deal with the estate in its order of priority.

  Native Affairs Commission.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the publication in the Natal Government Gazette of 21st January, by the Office of the Colonial Secretary of Natal, of a Report signed by the Under-Secretary for Native Affairs, and dealing with the unanimous findings of the Native Affairs Commission; whether the Report of the Under-Secretary advises Natal legislation pointing to South African federation, and shows that the Governor of Natal legislation pointing to South African federation, and shows that the Governor of Natal does not possess in Zululand the powers vested in the supreme chief by the code of Native Law for Natal proper, unless indeed His Excellency possesses legislative authority in Zululand; whether Sir Charles Saunders, K.C.M.G., Commissioner for Native Affairs in Zululand, in his evidence republished in the Natal newspapers on the same day, shows that over and over again there have been continuous breaches of faith with the Zulus in regard to their land; and whether, in view of the legal difficulties surrounding the situation in
  994
  Zululand, His Majesty's Government will request the Governor of Natal to report at once upon the subject of the proposed future administration of that province.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Report referred to has been received and contains expressions of opinion such as are stated in the Question. It is not, however, clear what is meant by the reference to the legislative authority of the Governor in Zululand, as Zululand having been annexed to Natal, in whose legislature members from Zululand sit, power to legislate for Zululand would appear to be necessarily restricted to the Parliament of the Colony. The Natal newspaper containing the remarks by Sir Charles Saunders referred to have not yet been received, but I have seen his remarks at page 136 of the volume evidence given before the Native Affairs Commission. The Secretary of State, as at present advised, does not consider that the legal difficulties are such as call for the Report suggested, but a copy of my right hon. friend's Question shall be sent to the Governor for his observations. Sir M. Nathan has been in communication with Ministers on various matters arising out of the Report of the Native Affairs Commission, and will, no doubt, be in a position to deal more confidently with the whole subject after the visit he is now paying to Zululand.

  Game Reserves in the East African Protectorate.
  SIR C. HILL: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it has been decided to reduce the area of the game reserves in the East Africa Protectorate; and, if so, what reserves are affected and what reduction is contemplated.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) No decision has been taken to reduce the area of the game reserves in the East African Protectorate.

  Treatment of Juvenile Offenders.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state

  995
  what are the regulations with regard to the handcuffing and conveyance of juvenile offenders, both before and after conviction, in London, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester and Bristol.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) When juvenile offenders have to be removed by the prison authorities, the prison regulations prescribe that they shall not be handcuffed, unless there is a good reason to anticipate an attempt to escape or it is necessary on other grounds to make special provision for safe custody, and then only a leather strap is to be used. Special care is always taken to keep juveniles apart from older offenders. As regards the police forces named in the Question, I have ascertained that it is not the practice of any of them to handcuff juvenile offenders either before or after conviction. The mode of conveyance of juvenile offenders in the hands of the police varies in different police jurisdictions, as the local circumstances and requirements necessarily differ. In the Metropolitan Police district the police are instructed that juvenile offenders shall not be conveyed in prison vans, tramcars, or omnibuses, but that cabs shall be hired when necessary. In Liverpool a special omnibus is provided for such offenders, and in Manchester covered conveyances are used. In Leeds juveniles are conveyed to prison as far as possible in a separate compartment of the prison van. It appears to be the general practice, in the case of children who are ordered to be sent to reformatory or industrial schools, for boys to be conveyed there by police; officers in plain clothes, and for girls to be accompanied by a female warder or police matron.

  Control of Police Stations.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by whom the police stations in England and Wales, not being police stations in the metropolitan area, are controlled; and whether they are subject to inspection by the Prison Commissioners.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Police stations are controlled by the police authority for the area in which
  996
  they are situated, which in boroughs is the watch committee and in counties the standing joint committee. They are not subject to inspection by the Prison Commissioners, but are inspected by His Majesty's inspectors of constabulary. The results of that inspection are included in the inspectors' annual Reports (Police (England and Wales).

  Political Demonstrators.
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state any precedent for treating political demonstrators as political offenders one year and the same people or their associates as ordinary law breakers for making similar demonstrations the following year.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) As I informed my hon. friend on the 3rd of this month, the question in which division a prisoner should be placed is one for the discretion of the magistrate, and the fact of a prisoner being placed in the first division does not of itself afford any ground for regarding him or her, as a political offender.

  Deportation of Paupers to Ireland.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that Michael Flannagan, ex-colour sergeant of the 17th Lancers who worked as a moulder in England from 1891 to 18th May, 1907, for the two years, 1898–1900, when he worked in Ireland, has been deported from the West Derby Union, Liverpool, to Lismore Union, where he arrived on the 6th instant; by whose direction has the deportation been carried out, and under what circumstances; is he aware that Michael Flannagan had been admitted to the Sheffield Union hospital in May, 1907, suffering from the effects of an accident which occurred to him while working at his trade as moulder; and will he say why he was removed from that hospital to the West Derby Union.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have made inquiry as to this case. I understand that Flannagan was removed to the Lismore Union by order of justices

  997
  for the city of Liverpool on the complaint of the guardians of the West Derby Union. I am informed that he had been admitted to the workhouse of that union on the 30th August last from the vagrant wards, that he left on 12th September, and returned through the vagrant wards on the 8th ultimo. He appears in the meantime to have been tramping about the country. It is stated that he has been moving about England and Scotland for several years, but that his wife and family reside in Cappoquin, county Waterford. I understand that he was not sent to the West Derby Union from Sheffield.

  Burial Regulations.
  MR. HOLT: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, under what circumstances burial is permitted previous to the registration of death.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) It may be stated generally that the registration of the death is not necessary before burial takes place. Sec. 17 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1874, and Sec. 11 of The Burial Laws Amendment Act, 1880, contain provisions on the subject, and it will be seen from them that where there is either an order of a coroner authorising burial or a certificate of a registrar that he has registered or received notice of the death, the order or certificate must be delivered to the person conducting the funeral service or responsible for the burial. If no such order or certificate is delivered to this person, he must give notice of the burial to the registrar.

  Bognor Urban District Councillor.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the case of a solicitor who, as a member of the Bognor Urban District Council, sat and voted on the council when a scheme in which he was professionally interested was being considered; and, if so, what action he has taken, or will take, in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have received a letter on this subject, but the
  998
  matter is not one with respect to which I have any jurisdiction. I do not express any opinion as to the present case; but I may say that where a councillor has become disqualified the disqualification takes effect without any action on my part.

  Municipal Accounts.
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has any information as to the probability of the publication of Vol. II. of the Report of the Committee on the Standardising of Municipal Accounts.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) My hon. friend is under a misapprehension in this matter. Vol. II. of the Report was published in August last. I will send him a copy.

  Trade Statistics.
  MR. ERSKINE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the values of imports and exports of the United Kingdom, the United States of America, the German Empire, and France, for each of the years 1902 to 1906, inclusive, distinguishing separately the imports and exports of food, raw materials, and manufactures.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The following statements, which have been compiled from the official Trade Returns of the countries referred to, give the information desired by my hon. friend. I have to point out, however, that material differences exist in the methods of classification of imports and exports adopted by the respective countries, and that the results for particular categories are therefore not absolutely comparable.
  Statements showing for the years 1902 to 1906, inclusive, the Values of the Imports for Home Consumption and Exports of Domestic Produce into and from the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Germany, and France, distinguishing separately the Imports and Exports of (a) Food, (b) Raw Materials, and (c) Manufactures:—

  I.—Imports for Home Consumption.

  Years.

  United Kingdom*

  United States (Years ended 30th June.)

  Germany. †

  France.

  Million pounds.

  Million pounds.

  Million pounds.

  Million pounds.

  (a) Food.

  1902

  213·6

  43·7

  96·8

  32·7

  1903

  221·3

  47·5

  96·0

  38·5

  1904

  219·7

  50·8

  96·2

  32·7

  1905

  219·3

  59·1

  115·2

  32·9

  1906

  226·2

  56·1

  113·8

  37·6

  (b) Raw Materials.

  1902

  130·8

  60·2

  125·9

  111·9

  1903

  133·1

  66·0

  139·8

  120·8

  1904

  143·0

  64·0

  156·7

  114·1

  1905

  144·3

  78·7

  170·0

  123·5

  1906

  164·1

  83·7

  198·3

  147·5

  (c) Manufactures.

  1902

  115·9

  77·7

  54·2

  31·2

  1903

  116·6

  93·2

  59·4

  32·8

  1904

  115·9

  85·0

  60·0

  33·3

  1905

  121·6

  88·0

  65·3

  34·7

  1906

  130·4

  180·4

  82·3

  40·0

  (d) Total.

  1902

  462·6‡

  182·8§

  276·9

  175·8

  1903

  473·0‡

  207·9§

  295·1

  19·21

  1904

  480·7‡

  201·2§

  312·9

  180·1

  1905

  487·2‡

  227·2§

  350·5

  191·1

  1906

  522·8‡

  250·1§

  394·4

  225·1

  * Net imports, i.e., total imports, less re-exports.

  † The particulars given relate to the German Zollgebiet, which includes Luxemburg.

  ‡ Includes parcels post and miscellaneous and unclassified articles valued at 2·2 million pounds in 1902, 2·1 million pounds in 1903, 2·1 million pounds in 1904, 2·1 million pounds in 1905, and 2·2 million pounds in 1906.

  § Includes miscellaneous and unclassified articles, valued at 1·2 million pounds in 1902, 1·2 million pounds in 1903, 1·4 million pounds in 1904, 1·4 million pounds in 1905, and 1·9 million pounds in 1906.

  II.—Exports of Domestic Produce.

  Years.

  United Kingdom.

  United States (Years ended 30th June).

  Germany.*

  France.

  Million pounds.

  Million pounds.

  Million pounds.

  Million pounds.

  (a) Food.

  1902

  17·1

  107·0

  21·0

  28·3

  1903

  16·3

  105·9

  25·1

  26·5

  1904

  16·9

  92·6

  25·8

  27·7

  1905

  19·4

  83·6

  24·9

  31·2

  1906

  21·1

  109·3

  28·0

  28·5

  (b) Raw Materials.

  1902

  35·3

  77·8

  57·1

  46·8

  1903

  36·1

  85·1

  60·2

  47·0

  1904

  36·2

  96·2

  61·8

  48·8

  1905

  36·3

  98·5

  68·9

  53·5

  1906

  43·3

  104·3

  68·3

  59·0

  (c) Manufactures.

  1902

  226·9

  94·6

  151·9

  95·0

  1903

  234·1

  97·5

  161·3

  96·6

  1904

  243·3

  109·0

  169·2

  101·5

  1905

  269·1

  127·4

  188·0

  109·9

  1906

  305·5

  142·9

  216·3

  123·2

  (d) Total.

  1902

  283·4†

  282·4‡

  230·0

  170·1

  1903

  290·8†

  290·0‡

  246·6

  170·1

  1904

  300·7†

  299·0‡

  256·8

  178·0

  1905

  329·8†

  310·8‡

  281·8

  194·7

  1906

  375·6†

  357·9‡

  312·6

  210·6

  * The particulars given relate to the German Zollgebiet, which includes Luxemburg.

  † Includes parcel post and miscellaneous and unclassified articles valued at 4·2 million pounds in 1902, 4·3 million pounds in 1903, 4·3 million pounds in 1904, 5·0 million pounds in 1905, and 5·7 million pounds in 1906.

  ‡ includes miscellaneous and unclassified articles valued at 3'0 million pounds in 1902, 1·5 million pounds in 1903, 1·2 million pounds in 1904, 1·3 million pounds in 1905, and 1·4 million pounds in 1906.

  Wage Tables.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, when it is proposed to complete the preliminary and partial tables of the course of money wages in the United Kingdom and principal foreign countries on Page 275 of the Fiscal Blue-book; and whether he can state, meanwhile, the index numbers for the years after 1900 for the United Kingdom.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The index numbers for the United Kingdom for the years 1901–7 are as follows:—

  1901

  98·6

  1902

  97·0

  1903

  96·2

  1904

  95·6

  1905

  95·9

  1906

  97·6

  1907

  101·8

  A good deal of information as to wages in foreign countries has been obtained since the issue of the Blue-book referred to, and the results of later inquiries will be published in due course.

  Great Northern and Great Central Agreement.
  MR. ELLIS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what powers has the Board of Trade, with respect to sanction or amendment of such agreements for working as that proposed by the Great Northern and Great Central Railways, to safeguard the interests of the public and of the traders; whether it will be necessary to confirm that particular agreement by a Bill in Parliament; and what steps is the Board taking in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The special Act of 1858, under which the agreement between the Great Northern and Great Central Railway Companies purports to be made, required that agreements under the Act should be approved by the Board of Trade, but the powers of the Board in regard to working agreements under special Acts were transferred to the Railway Commissioners (now the Railway and Canal Commission) by the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873. The agreement does not require confirmation
  1004
  by Parliament. The Board have lodged certain objections before the Commission, and the hearing has been fixed by the Commission for the 26th instant.

  Grays Dock Bill.
  MR. CARR-GOMM: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a statement has been made to the effect that the proposals of the promoters of the Lower Thames (Grays) Dock Bill have been submitted to the Board of Trade, and that they will be recommended to the House as offering the cheapest and most practicable solution of the problem; and whether the promoters of this private Bill have any authority for making a statement as to the views of the Government in this important matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) I have seen a newspaper paragraph, but the promoters of the Bill inform me that no statement to the effect indicated in the Question has been made by them or with their authority. The proposals in question have been submitted to the Board of Trade, but there is no foundation for any statement as to the views entertained by the Government thereon.

  Unemployment in Germany.
  MR. TREVELYAN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the percentage of members of trade unions out of work in Germany, and the corresponding figures for the United Kingdom.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) I must refer my hon. friend to the reply given on 7th February to the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets.

  Syston Postmen's Wages.
  MR. WALKER: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that as long ago as November, 1906, Mr. G. E. Kilby, an auxiliary postman at Syston, Leicestershire, applied for an increase of pay, showing that the wages he was receiving were lower than they should have been considering the number of hours worked; that no reply has been made to that application; and that, as the work on

  1005
  Mr. Kilby's walk increased to a sufficient extent to justify it being made into an established post, Mr. Kilby made an application for appointment under the regulation which provides that where the work on an auxiliary's walk grows a claim to appointment is admitted for the auxiliary concerned, and that this has been unsuccessful, and whether he will inquire into the case.
  (Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I find that instructions were given in May last to pay to Mr. Kilby arrears of wages to which he was entitled, but I regret that, owing to some misunderstanding, as to which I am making further inquiry, the sum due has not so far been paid. The matter shall, however, receive attention forthwith. It is clearly stated in the conditions of engagement that auxiliary postmen have no title to promotion to established positions, and there is no regulation that where the work on an auxiliary's walk grows he acquires a claim to appointment. Full consideration was, however, given to Mr. Kilby's application when the established post at Syston was created, but as there were assistant postmen and telegraph messengers in the district with long service and claims to appointment, it was not practicable to give him the post. It was, however, found possible to give him another auxiliary duty with slightly higher wages than he had been receiving.

  Discharges from the Mount Pleasant Factory.
  MR. STEADMAN: To ask the Postmaster-General if men in Mount Pleasant Factory with from three and a half to eight and a half years service are now being discharged and men with less service retained; and would he be prepared to transfer these men to some other Department, so that their service may not be broken.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The men to whom the hon. Member refers were employed in the battery shop and have, I regret to say, had to be discharged because, owing to the extended use of secondary batteries, the work in the battery shop has fallen off largely. As far as possible the men with least service have been discharged. I much
  1006
  regret that, though every endeavour was made, no other work could be found for them. The number so discharged is four.

  Special Telegraph Wires.
  MR. JOWETT: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that Clause 16 of the Telegraph Act, 1868, after providing that the special use of a telegraph wire might be granted for a period of twelve hours per diem at a sum not exceeding £500 per annum, expressly provided that no undue priority or preference in respect of such rates should be given to one person over any other such occupier, and that Mr. Fawcett and Lord Eversley, when Postmasters-General, laid it down that the meaning of this clause was that the Post Office should carry on the business of transmitting news messages, and that certain newspaper proprietors have complained that postal administrators have recently given preference to the wealthier newspapers, he intends to hand over, to a much greater degree, the transmission of news telegrams over public wires loaned by private individuals, and thus set aside the Telegraph Act of 1868.
  MR. JOWETT: To ask the Postmaster-General, whether the members of a Departmental Committee have reported that they see no objection to handing over the transmission of news telegrams from London to the provinces to private individuals, with power to loan public wires and supply their own operators; whether permanent servants of the Crown have the power to set aside public rights acquired by purchase and embodied in an Act of Parliament by administration only; whether the Committee recommends to newspaper proprietors that the whole field of Post Office pensioners is open for the recruitment of operators; and whether he is prepared to permit so large an extension of the practice of sub-contracting without making any stipulations regarding the wages or working conditions of telegraphists who are to staff public wires loaned to newspaper syndicates or news agencies.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I will answer these two Questions together

  1007
  Representations were made to my by various newspaper-proprietors and by the Press Association, with a view to seeing whether any arrangements mutually advantageous and satisfactory to the Department and the Press could be entered into whereby a more rapid and efficient service could be given to the Press, the object held principally in view being to reduce, as far as possible, the necessary consumption of time in the reception, manipulation, and transmission of Press messages. The chief suggestion was a scheme of joint private wires on the analogy of the private wires which some of the newspapers already possess. The hon. Member appears to be unaware that the Postmaster-General has provided private wires for private individuals ever since the transfer of the telegraphs to the State. There are some 4,000 of such private wires and, where the renters of private wires employ staff, they always engage and pay their own staff. As regards the question of the proposed joint private wires, no arrangement has yet been come to. The conditions under which they should be granted, including the conditions of service of the wires where these are not staffed by the Post Office, are still under consideration. No priority or preference has been given to any newspaper proprietor in respect of the rates referred to in Section 16 of the Telegraph Act of 1868, or any other rates. I do not see that that section is in any way set aside by the proposal which I have under consideration for allowing newspapers and news agencies, like other undertakings, to rent private wires. It will be equally open to anyone who desires to apply for a special wire, a private wire, or a joint private wire. Permanent servants of the Crown, have, of course, no power such as that suggested. Their duty is to advise the Postmaster-General when, as in this case, they are called upon to do so. The power of decision rests with him alone.

  Scottish Telegraph Store Depot Accounts.
  MR. W. BENN: To ask the Postmaster-General, whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, stating that in the financial year 1905–6 accounts had been
  1008
  adjusted at Edinburgh and Glasgow telegraph store depots in order to effect an agreement, as far as possible, between expenditure and the authorised estimate for each individual work; and what action he has taken with reference to this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The facts were not quite as would appear from the Report of the Public Accounts Committee. The Comptroller and Auditor-General had reported cases in which wages and travelling expenses had been charged to wrong works, but I did not find that the errors were due to any improper motive, or that there had been any intention of manipulating the accounts in the manner suggested in the Committee's Report, nor was any such suggestion made by the Comptroller and Auditor-General in the case of Glasgow and Edinburgh. The errors in these cases appeared to be due to want of care. Attention was called to the errors at the time, and the officers in fault expressed their regret; but I did not consider that disciplinary notice was necessary at either Edinburgh or Glasgow.

  Corn Market Returns.
  MR. FELL: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what was the total quantity of wheat in 1907 returned under the Corn Returns Act, as being sold on the London market; and what proportion this bears to the estimated total consumption of wheat in the London area.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The total quantity of wheat returned under The Corn "Returns Act, 1882, as purchased at Mark Lane in 1907, was 128,140 quarters. The total consumption of wheat in the London area is not a matter in regard to which precise statistics are available.

  Wheat Prices in London.
  MR. FELL: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what is the average difference of price in London between British wheat and all kinds of imported wheat.

  1009
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) In 1907, the average price per quarter of British wheat in London, as ascertained under The Corn Returns Act, 1882, was 31s. 7d. and the average value of wheat imported into London was 32s. 11d., a difference of 1s. 4d.

  Advances for Small Holdings.
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of Subsection 4 of Section 39 of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907, the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries will make grants or advances to societies having for one of their objects the provision or profitable working of small holdings or allotments, in addition to grants made to such societies by county councils.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Board have no power to make grants or advances to societies of the character of those to which my hon. friend refers. They can only give financial assistance to societies having as their object, or one of their objects, the promotion of co-operation in connection with the cultivation of small holdings or allotments.

  Agricultural Advances in the Colonies.
  MR. VERNEY: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the Acts recently passed in the Cape of Good Hope, the Transvaal, Natal, and Western Australia, for assisting agriculture by money advances at low rates of interest from the Colonial Governments, through the instrumentality of credit banks or mortgage bonds; and whether the Board of Agriculture will consider the advisability of establishing machinery of the same kind for existing agriculture and especially co-operative agricultural associations in this country.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) We published a brief summary of the provisions of the Acts to which my hon. friend refers in our Journal this month. I shall be glad to send him a copy, and
  1010
  to consider the suggestion he makes in the latter part of his Question.

  Argentine Cattle Industry.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Argentine has, owing to the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, refused to admit cattle exported from Scotland to her ports; and whether he can assure the House that every possible precaution has been taken to prevent the spread of the disease to England.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Answer to both Questions is in the affirmative.

  Weir Charity Fund.
  SIR HENRY KIMBER: To ask the hon. Member for the Elland Division, as Charity Commissioner whether the Charity Commissioners have received a petition, signed by 13,699 persons above the age of eighteen years residing in the parish of Streatham, protesting against the proposed application of the fund of the Weir charity to the Bolingbroke Hospital, as not being in accordance with the intention of the testator; and what steps the Charity Commissioners propose to take with regard to the Benjamin Weir bequest.
  (Answered by Mr. Trevelyan.) The Charity Commissioners have received a petition from residents in the parish of Streatham to the effect stated by the hon. Member. The terms of a scheme for the future administration of the Weir Charity are now under consideration by the Commissioners, and a draft of the proposed scheme will be published in the locality in due course.

  Prevention of Corruption Act.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether any prosecutions have taken place under The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906; and whether any manufacturers, merchants, or others have volunteered any information to the Crown with the

  1011
  object of having proceedings taken against persons contravening this Act.
  (Answered by Sir W. Robson.) Eight applications have been made for the Attorney-General's fiat for prosecutions under The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906. Fiats have been granted and convictions obtained in seven of these cases; one case is at present under consideration.

  Waterford Magistracy.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the resolution passed by the Lismore rural council on the 7th instant, with reference to the action of the magistrates at Lismore petty sessions, has come under the notice of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland; whether, in view of the facts referred to, and the resolutions of other public bodies in the county Waterford calling for the appointment of additional magistrates, the Lord Chancellor will take steps accordingly; and whether, as the Lord-Lieutenant of the county is the Duke of Devonshire, who resides in the county for not more than two or three weeks yearly, the Lord Chancellor will consider the appointment of additional magistrates by virtue of his own authority.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) I have referred this Question to the Lord Chancellor who has furnished me with the following reply A copy of a resolution passed by the Lismore rural district council on the 7th instant was transmitted to the Lord Chancellor, asking him to appoint additional magistrates in that district on the ground that the magistrates sitting at petty sessions, presided over by the resident magistrate, had refused to grant a decree against a tenant of a cottage who was sued by the collector of the council. The magistrates appear to have acted within their judicial discretion, and the Lord Chancellor cannot interfere with its exercise. There are, besides the resident magistrate, eleven justices attending the Lismore petty sessions. The Lord Chancellor is always ready to consider the appointment of magistrates whenever necessary, and the names of several persons suggested for appointment to the bench have been sent to the Duke
  1012
  of Devonshire by the Lord Chancellor, and he believes that the Duke will deal with them as soon as he returns to England, which it is hoped will be at an early date.

  Irish Game Laws.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that prosecutions for trespass in pursuit of game in Ireland are brought under a Statute passed in the twenty-seventh year of the reign of George III., and that, under this Statute, any stranger having no immediate interest in the matter can maintain a prosecution against any person who is traversing lands in the possession of any other person, and appearing to be in the pursuit of game; whether he is aware that heavy penalties are usually inflicted, and that John Campion was fined on the 1st instant, by a majority of the bench at Lismore petty sessions, £2 for being on the lands of John O'Farrell, a judicial tenant of the Duke of Devonshire, on 8th January, accompanied by two greyhounds, in a prosecution by the duke's gamekeeper; and whether he will consider the advisability of an alteration in the game laws.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) I am informed that the prosecution was not under the Act of George III., but under 27 and 28 Vic, c. 67. which provides that when a landlord has reserved to himself the exclusive right to game on any land he shall be deemed the legal occupier of such land for the purposes of that Act. It may be inferred from the fact that the Duke of Devonshire was the prosecutor in this case that the game rights are reserved to him in respect of the holding purchased by John O'Farrell under the Lands Acts. It is the fact that Campion was fined the full penalty of £2. I am informed that he had been fined 10s. for a similar offence, at the prosecution of the Duke of Devonshire, in the previous month. The Government do not contemplate any legislation for amending the game laws in Ireland.

  Brown Linen Hall, Belfast.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-

  1013
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the sale of the Brown Linen Hall, Donegall Street-Belfast, for the sum of £1,050; and whether, in view of the fact that the premises known as the Brown Linen Hall form one of the few remaining relics of old Belfast, and one intimately and honourably associated with the staple trade and the history of the city he will take steps to secure its preservation as a national monument.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The Board of Works can only take charge of ancient or mediæval buildings if the owners propose to hand them over, and they inform me that no such proposal has been made in this case. Even if it were made, the Board state that they could not accept it, since this building (apart from the question of its date) has no architectural features', and its antiquarian interest is not of a national but only of a local character.

  Bawnboy Rural District Council.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received a resolution from the Bawnboy Rural District Council dealing with the repayment of advances made for the purchase of seed potatoes; and will he say if the prayer of the resolution will be acceded to.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The resolution has been received. It requests the Government to give the seed loan free of interest, or in the alternative to give a grant in-aid. I would refer to the reply to the Question put by the hon. Member for South Leitrim on the 18th instant. The Department of Agriculture have considered the question of making a grant, and have decided not to make any grant this year.

  Nobber Evicted Tenant.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the lengthened period that the application of Francis Hopkins, Nobber, county Meath, for reinstatement in his former holding has been before the Estates Commissioners and that the
  1014
  farm from which he was evicted is still on the hands of the landlord, Colonel Lyster Smythe, they will consider his case at the earliest possible moment.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The Estates Commissioners have nothing to add to the reply which was given on the 18th instant to the hon. Member's Question on this subject.

  Rifle Clubs.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is contemplating giving any financial aid to those clubs inspected and passed by his Department and which are imparting instruction on the handling and use of the rifle.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane. The reply is in the negative. There are no funds for the present at my disposal for this purpose.

  Michael Flannagan, late of the 17th Lancers.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Michael Flannagan, a native of Cappoquin, county Waterford, served in the 17th Lancers from 1873 to 1891, and attained the rank of colour-sergeant; will he say whether he passed an examination qualifying him for a commission in the Army; under what circumstances did he leave the Army; and what was the name of the colonel of the 17th Lancers at the time Michael Flannagan left the regiment.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The cavalry records for the period in question have been searched, but no trace can be found of the man mentioned.

  Royal Military College, Sandhurst.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that the new regulations in force as to admission to the Royal Military College at Sandhurst bear hardly in some cases with regard to the age limit; that, in effect, the rule by which the earliest limit of age for admission was raised from seventeen to eighteen operates in numerous cases to extend

  1015
  the earliest age when a cadet can pass out to twenty or even more; that candidates born in June and December cannot possibly enter the college until they are considerably over eighteen and a-half years of age, and must wait nearly six months after their eighteenth birthday before they are allowed to present themselves for examination; and that in consequence class fellows below a cadet in class, but a few days older, may get their commissions six months before him and take precedence of him all through the service; and whether he will consider the possibility of favouring the entry of university candidates without discouraging that of candidates from other sources.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The effect of raising the age limit for entrance to the Royal Military College from seventeen to eighteen years was carefully considered before the issue of the regulations now in force. In order to give an equal number of opportunities, with a half-yearly competitive examination, no matter what age limit is fixed, there must always be a difference of seniority among candidates whose birthdays happen to be near the governing dates. Besides approximating the age of Sandhurst cadets to that of candidates from the universities, there were other objects in view when the age limit was raised, e.g.—(a) To enable cadets being older on entry to derive greater benefit from the Royal Military College course; (b) To ensure that officers were not too young on joining their regiments for service in India and elsewhere abroad.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Pacific Islanders' Protection Act.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if amending legislation connected with the Pacific Islanders, Protection Act will be introduced this session.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATUE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): No, Sir.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Then do I understand that the Government maintains a condition of slavery under the British flag?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am not aware there is any such condition of slavery established in these Islands. If the hon. Member has any information showing that I shall be glad to receive it.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Is it not the case that last session the Government announced that such an Act would be necessary under the Convention?
  MR. CHURCHILL: The object of the Convention was to prevent improper conditions of labour prevailing under the British flag, and that will be fully carried out.

  Floggings in Natal.
  MR. BELLOC: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies with regard to the five men who were recently flogged in Natal, whether he can furnish the House with the dates upon which these punishments were inflicted, the places in which they were inflicted, the names of those who passed the sentences, and of all those present by official authority at the execution of the same.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Governor of Natal has telegraphed as follows—"The floggings all took place at Nongoma, the first on 10th December, the others between 12th December and 20th December. Sentences passed by McKenzie and the floggings were administered by the gaoler, Nongoma prison. No further floggings have taken place, but it has been reported that a native was assaulted in the Babanango district by a trooper, and an inquiry on the matter is being held." I have no further information on this particular point, but meanwhile I am glad to be able to add that the Governor has stated that during his tour in Zululand the native; chiefs and others who have come to see him and were able to speak freely with him, have made no reference to any harsh treatment under martial law. I should like to add that the Governor of

  1017
  Natal has informed the Government that he has just signed a warrant for the release of 1,587 men who were imprisoned for participation in the 1906 rebellion. This step has been taken by the desire and on the initiation of the Natal Government.

  Cable Communication with the West Indies.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when the results of the inquiry of the Departmental Committee on Cable Communications in the West Indies will be published.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Telegraphic Communication in the West Indies are under consideration, and the Secretary of State cannot at present make any statement or say whether papers can be laid before Parliament on the subject.
  In reply to a further Question by the hon. Member—
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid the Report had been presented to the Secretary of State, and a copy of it had been published in one of the Colonies.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Will the Government consider the propriety of publishing it?
  MR. CHURCHILL: No doubt that will eventually be done.

  Nairobi Expedition.
  SIR SCOTT ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether an expedition has been sent from Nairobi to put down an alleged rising of the natives in British East Africa; if he can say what is the extent and character of this rising, and its causes; what are the precise objects of the expedition in question, and what force is likely to be employed; and generally whether Parliament can he supplied with further information on the whole subject.
  MR. CHURCHILL: On 11th January Mr. Northcote, one of the Assistant
  1018
  District Commissioners of the Protectorate, was attacked by natives at Kisii and wounded by a spear. Subsequently several clans in the neighbourhood broke out in open revolt and two Indians and one Kavirondo were murdered. Fifty police and a doctor were despatched as soon as possible to the spot, and were followed by three companies of the King's African Rifles. The operations were not of a serious nature and came to an end on 6th February. One company and two officers were to remain at Kisii, and the rest of the force was to return to Nairobi on 12th February.

  Recruiting Indentured Labour in Madagascar.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Transvaal Government propose to arrange for the recruiting of indentured labourers from the Island of Madagascar; whether any labourers have been recruited from the Island of Madgascar; and whether the Transvaal Government has negotiated direct with the French Government on the subject.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Transvaal Government desire to ascertain whether the French Government will sanction the recruiting of native labour in Madagascar for employment in the Transvaal mines. No recruiting has taken place. Nor is the Transvaal Government negotiating direct with the French Government.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYasked what reply the Government had given to the representations of the Transvaal Government.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I really do not understand what representations the hon. Gentleman is referring to. The Transvaal Government have asked us to do certain things, and we are making inquiries to see whether we can do them or not.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked the right hon. Gentleman if he could lay the communications which had passed on the Table, as that would give the hon. Member the information asked for.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman knows I have no authority to say upon my own account what Papers shall or shall not be laid on the Table; but if a Question in that sense is put down I will bring it to the notice of my noble friend.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Are we to understand that the Transvaal Government has discovered that there are not sufficient natives for the Transvaal mines and are going to Madagascar to get them?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I cannot draw the inferences from the facts which the hon. Member suggests.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: When will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of laying Papers.
  MR. CHURCHILL: When the correspondence is complete.

  The Ransom of Mr. Robert Abbott.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the ransom of £15,000 paid to the brigands at Smyrna for the release of Mr. Robert Abbott has been recovered from the Turkish Government; if not, what steps are being taken to obtain payment.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): The larger part of the ransom paid for Mr. Abbott's release is now in the hands of the Ottoman Government, having been recovered from the brigands. Sir N. O'Conor was recently instructed to request that it may be handed over to His Majesty's Government forthwith. The question of the best means of recovering the remainder of the money is now under consideration.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERasked if His Majesty's Government were holding the Turkish Government responsible for the amount?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I should like notice of the Question.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: How much was got back from the brigands?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I think £9,000 has been recovered from them.

  Russia, Sweden and the Aland Islands.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that alarm has been occasioned in Sweden by the report of Russia's intention to demand release from her treaty obligations in regard to the fortification or permanent military or naval occupation of the Aland Islands; whether any representations have been made by Russia proposing the abrogation of the treaty of 1856; and what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government upon this question.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: At the same time may I ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any representations have been received by His Majesty's Government from the Russian Government regarding the position in the Aland Islands and the continuance of the Aland Treaty; and, if so, whether he is prepared to make any statement on the subject.
  MR. BYLES: May I also ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether his attention has been called to the political unrest in Sweden occasioned by the negotiations said to be pending between Great Britain and the other signatories of the Treaty of Paris of a nature likely to affect the position of Sweden in the Baltic; and can he make any reassuring statement which would satisfy the House that Great Britain is making no arrangement which would be disadvantageous to a friendly Power.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I am aware that anxiety on this subject has found public expression in Sweden. The Treaty referred to is one to which Great Britain, France, and Russia are parties, and I can make no statement about any negotiations concerning it except that it is not at the present moment necessary for His Majesty's Government to come to any decision about it. If, and when,

  1021
  this is necessary, we shall of course consult with both the other parties to the Treaty, and take into account the feeling of Sweden and every other circumstance which is relevant, before coming to any decision.

  Macedonia.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British proposal for the employment of gendarmerie in pursuit of Macedonian bands has been abandoned in its present form; and, if so, for what reason.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I would ask the hon. Member to await a statement on the whole subject of Macedonia, which I propose to make on the 25th instant.

  Disturbances at Tabriz.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any report has reached him with regard to the recent disturbances at Tabriz.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: According to the latest report received from His Majesty's Charge d' Affaires at Tehran, a fight broke out at Tabriz on 17th January between the revolutionaries and some roughs. Fighting lasted for two days, and twenty people were killed or wounded. Intermittent fighting continued until the end of the month, when cavalry and infantry were posted in the town to keep order, and tranquillity was restored.
  *MR. BOWLESasked if there was any information to show that Russia had recently sent troops to Tabriz.
  SIR EDWARD GREYasked for notice.

  Baggage Bobberies on Continental Lines.
  SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the frequent robberies on the Paris, Lyon, and Mediterranean Railway from the luggage of British travellers; and whether, owing to the ineffectual attempts
  1022
  made to obtain redress from the company, he will instruct His Majesty's Ambassador in Paris to make a formal representation on the subject to the French Government.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to the matter, and I will communicate with His Majesty's Ambassador in Paris as to the circumstances.
  SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELDasked if any representations would be made to the Italian Government?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I did not say I would make representations, but that I would communicate with the British Ambassador at Paris on this subject.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSSasked if the British Ambassador would be asked to make representations and if it was not the duty of the Foreign Office to look after the interests of British subjects.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Yes, Sir; and that is the reason why I am going to communicate with the Ambassador at Paris; but what the hon. Member asked me was that I should make a formal representation to a foreign Government on the subject of its own railway, a very improper subject for representation.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: No, I did not mean that. I thought the British Ambassador might be asked if he thought representations were desirable to be made.

  Arbitration Treaty with the United States.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the negotiations with the United States with reference to the conclusion of an arbitration treaty have reached a stage that will permit him to make an announcement on the subject.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The negotiations are proceeding, but it would be premature for the moment to make any further statement on the subject.

  Kaid Maclean.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Kaid Maclean has left Morocco for good; and has the Government received any promise that he will not return there except with the permission of the Government.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Government have no information of the future movements of Kaid Maclean, who, as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, is in the service of the Sultan of Morocco.
  MR. FELL: May I ask if the Kaid still remains a British subject, or if, when he entered the service of the Government of Morocco, he lost his rights as a Briton?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I must ask for notice, but I may point out that in Morocco there is extra-territorial jurisdiction.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is Raisuli a British subject?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: No, but he will be under British protection so long as he conducts himself satisfactorily.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any prospect of recovering from any quarter the money paid for the release of Kaid Maclean.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: By a Shereefian Firman received in December last at His Majesty's Legation at Tangier, the Moorish Government have formally recognised their liability in respect of the sum advanced by His Majesty's Government for the release of Sir Harry Maclean.

  Brewery Debenture Holders Committee.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he proposes to take any steps to prevent the officials of his Department from joining the Brewery Debenture Holders Committee, being a committee formed to protect the pecuniary interests of the holders of debentures secured upon breweries.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): No, Sir; I have no reason to think that any Home Office official would wish to join that committee. I may add with reference to the Question asked last Monday by my hon. friend the Member for Lincoln, that the Chief Constable of West Sussex has withdrawn his name from the list of the local Brewery Debenture Holders Committee in which it appeared.
  MR. FELL: Do I understand that this committee is not, in the opinion of the Home Office, a political organisation?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not see how that arises out of the Question.

  Boiler Examination.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a case heard at the Portadown petty sessions, on Monday 10th February, 1908, in which Mr. Williams, inspector of factories, prosecuted a local firm for failing to have the boiler used in their works examined and to register the report of the examination; whether, although this was the third prosecution against the firm for a similar offence and the inspector pressed for the full penalty, the magistrates only inflicted a fine of £3; whether he has any official reports bearing out the statement of the inspector that there is no part of the country where this provision of the Factory and Workshop Act is so much neglected as in Ulster, and that the neglect is due to the triviality of the fines inflicted by the magistrates; and whether, in view of all the facts of the case, and of the danger to the lives of employees involved in the neglect of the provisions of the Act by the employers he will issue instructions to the inspectors in Ulster to devote special attention to ensuring that the provisions of the Act in regard to the inspection of boilers are duly enforced.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have obtained a report on this case from the inspector of the district and find that the facts are as stated in the first two paragraphs

  1025
  of the Question. The time at my disposal has been too short to enable me to make any detailed inquiry as to the extent to which neglect of the provision relating to the examination of steam boilers prevails in Ulster, as compared with other industrial districts of the country, or as to the causes of that neglect; but the inspector reports that such neglect is not uncommon; that he is giving very careful attention to the enforcement of the requirements of the Act, and that he had already taken a number of proceedings in court.

  Factory and Workshop Accidents.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the number of non-fatal accidents reported under the Factory and Workshops Act during 1907; and also the number for the corresponding period of 1906 and that for 1898, with the percentage of increase in each case.
  I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the number of fatal accidents reported under the Factory and Workshops Act during 1907; also the number for the corresponding period of 1906 and that for 1898, with the percentage of increase in each case.
  I beg further to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the total number of fatal accidents and the total number of nonfatal accidents reported under the Factory and Workshops Act during the ten years 1898 to 1907.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The statistics of accidents for which the hon. Member asks will be found in the Annual Reports of the Chief Inspector of Factories, and in the preliminary Tables of accidents and cases of industrial poisoning just published. (Cd. 3925). As regards percentages, the number of fatal accidents has increased by 5½ per cent. as compared with the year 1906, and by 56 per cent. as compared with the year 1898. For non-fatal accidents the corresponding figures are 11 per cent. and 116 per cent. These increases are due partly to the
  1026
  increase in the number of persons employed in factories (about 100,000 a year), and to the extended use of machinery; and partly to closer inspection, and to the more complete reporting of accidents. This last cause affects very largely the returns of nonfatal accidents and also to some extent the returns of fatal accidents, the greatest increase in the latter class being in docks and buildings, where in the year 1898 the reporting even of fatal accidents was still far from complete. These increases are a matter of grave concern to me, and I shall soon be in a position to make a statement on the subject.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: May I ask whether, in view of the alarming increase in the number of fatal and nonfatal accidents, the Government will consider the desirability of giving us an opportunity of discussing this matter? It is one on which we feel very strongly.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): If the hon. Member will put down a Question, I will answer it on Monday.

  Socialism in the Post Office.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the Pioneer Socialist League has for its objects the propagation of the principles of Socialism, its field being primarily the personnel of the various postal services from which its membership is drawn; whether he is aware that the Pioneer Socialist League has received the thanks of certain successful Socialist candidates for Parliament for contributions towards their election expenses, and that it calls upon its members, as their duty, to subscribe to its war chest funds; and whether, in view of these facts, he will consider the advisability of refusing to allow this organisation to continue in the postal service.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): The existing regulations governing the action of postal servants as civil servants are shortly as follows. That they are to exercise a certain reserve in political matters; and it is specifically

  1027
  stated that they may not serve on a committee having for its object to promote or prevent the return of a particular candidate to Parliament, nor support or oppose any particular candidate or party either by public speaking or writing. Mr. Gladstone, as First Lord of the Treasury, in 1893 laid it down that "the only restriction by the custom of the public service on persons employed is that persons in the permanent employment of the State shall not take a prominent or active part in political contests, and it is not intended in future that any other restrictive rule should be imposed on the service of the Post Office." No attempt has, as far as I am aware, been made to prohibit civil servants from subscribing individually or collectively to such objects as they think fit. As regards the particular society in question, I understand that last autumn it was decided to incorporate it in the Civil Service Socialist Society and that this was carried out last month under the constitution of the Civil Service Socialist Society. Political action is expressly stated to be outside its province, and the general funds of the Society are not to be used for any other organisation.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the organ of this society statements were made acknowledging contributions towards the election expenses of Socialist candidates seeking to become Members of this House; and, if that is so, is he not of opinion that the objects of this society are strictly Party ones?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I really cannot add anything to the Answer I have given. I read out the actual regulations that exist in the Post Office, and I must ask the hon. Member to draw his own conclusions from them.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are two servants of the Post Office who are members of the Manchester City Council and who are avowed Socialists? Will the right hon. Gentleman further say whether the Post Office Socialist organisation has supported the candidature of those two members?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: If the society has supported the candidates for the Manchester City Council it is entirely within its rights, because that is not prohibited in any way.
  *MR. R. DUNCAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the strong public feeling that is growing that the rules of fair play are being transgressed in the application of the Post Office regulations to these associations? The right hon. Gentleman will find evidence in The Daily Telegraph to-day.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I should be very sorry if it were thought that I had dealt out different measures of justice to any of these societies. My desire is to deal out even-handed justice.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that contributions were made by this society to the election expenses of the hon. Members for Preston and Colne Valley?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I believe in the organ of the society there was acknowledgment of a contribution of 15s. subscribed for the hon. Member for Colne Valley, but such contributions are not forbidden in the Civil Service.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: After the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, will he allow a branch of the Primrose League to be established in the Post Office, seeing that it exactly fulfils the conditions under which he has allowed a branch of the Pioneer Socialist League?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the answer to that was that, having regard his decision, which was founded on that of his predecessor, those interested in the matter formed another society, with rules which brought them within the regulations of the Post Office.

  Post Office Life Insurance.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether a Departmental Committee has been sitting to inquire what steps, if any, should be taken to encourage the use of the present life insurance system of the Post Office; whether the

  1029
  Committee has considered the advisablity of appointing a specially trained man to manage the life insurance business, the desirability of severing the insurance business from the savings bank system of accounts, and the advantage of the payment of premiums by means of stamps; and will the Report of the Committee be presented to the House of Commons.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Last year I appointed a Departmental Committee, of which Lord Farrer is Chairman, to consider, inter alia, "whether it is desirable that steps should be taken to encourage the use of the present life insurance system of the post office; and if so what steps." The Committee has not yet reported. Until their Report is presented to me I am unable to answer the other parts of the hon. Member's Question; which, however, I am forwarding to the Committee.

  Billingsgate Post Office Dining Room.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether a room was allocated for an upstairs dining room at the Billingsgate branch office at Christmas, 1907; upon what date the order for the necessary repairs and painting was given; whether only a part of the work was carried out, after which the work was discontinued; and why there has been this delay in carrying out these small but necessary repairs and painting.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I think the hon. Member must be under some misapprehension. I am making arrangements to take a fresh lease of the Billingsgate branch office, with the addition of an upper floor, in which retiring accommodation for part of the staff can be provided, but I am not yet in possession of the additional rooms.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Do I understand that although this matter has been in hand since March last, the Department is not yet in possession of the rooms, and that that is the reason for not carrying out the desired improvement.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: It is not in actual legal possession, and could only make the alterations by an act of courtesy.

  Clerkships in the Post Office.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the number of men clerkships in the Post Office is being or has been reduced; whether the number of boy clerkships has been proportionately decreased; whether there has been any reduction in boy clerkships; and whether girls have been or are to be employed to perform duties hitherto performed by boy clerks, or duties which could be performed as well by boy clerks.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: No general reduction in the number of male clerks is in contemplation; but at the Savings Bank Department there has been some decrease owing to recent rearrangements. The hon. Gentleman, I think, agrees in the view that the number of boys clerks should be diminished in view of the improbability of finding permanent employment for them all. The duties are assigned to girl clerks where they are suitable, but more girl clerks are not employed than can, if they give satisfaction, be retained in the service as women clerks.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of my Question as to whether girls are doing duties which could well be performed by boy clerks.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: That is so. We desire to diminish, as far as we can, the number of boy clerks. Unfortunately, we cannot find employment for them, and we have to part with them at twenty years of age.

  Cycle Postmen's Weights.
  MR. CLYNES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that postmen in Manchester are compelled to propel weights ranging up to 123 pounds in carrier tricycles; whether the Post Office are ignoring a regulation which provides that men are not compelled to propel weights exceeding 70 pounds

  1031
  and, if so, whether he can take steps to immediately enforce the regulation.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: No definite limit has been laid down for the weight to be conveyed on carrier tricycles in town districts, as it necessarily depends largely upon local circumstances, such as gradients, distances, etc. I am assured that the loads propelled by postmen at Manchester are not excessive and work out at an average of 55 pounds. After a discussion with the Postmen's Federation, I recently instructed the Second Medical Officer of the Post Office to inquire into the whole question of the weight to be carried on carrier tricycles in consultation with a doctor nominated by the Federation. Their inquiry is now in progress.
  MR. CLYNES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that this is a matter which can be settled on the basis of averages?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I cannot say that, but the question is now under consideration with a committee nominated by the Postmen's Federation. Until I get their Report I can give no undertaking.

  Imports of Milk and Cream.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade from what countries fresh milk and cream is imported into this country; and whether satisfactory regulations are in force in the countries of origin providing for the sanitary conditions under which such milk and cream is produced and handled.
  The hon. Member also had the following Questions on the Paper:—
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade through what ports of entry fresh milk and cream are imported into this country.
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what quantities of fresh milk and cream per week are now entering this country from abroad; and how such quantities compare with those of a year ago.
  1032

  To ask the President of the Local. Government Board whether, owing to the rapid increase of imports of fresh milk and cream, and the uncertainty of the sanitary conditions under which such milk and cream is produced, he will make stringent regulations for the inspection and examination of imported milk and cream at the ports of entry.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): Ordinarily the supply of fresh milk from abroad is insignificant, but owing to a shortage in home supplies there has been an exceptional importation during the last few weeks. The quantity of fresh milk imported into this country in the first seven weeks of this year was 697 cwt. as compared with 15 cwt. in the corresponding weeks of last year, whilst of cream the quantity imported was 1,172 cwt. as compared with 690 cwt. The milk is imported from France and landed at Southampton. The cream comes from France, Russia, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium and the Argentine Republic and is landed at London, Harwich, Hull, Newhaven, Newcastle, Southampton, Leith and Grangemouth. The information in my possession is not sufficient to enable me to say how far satisfactory regulations are in force in the countries of origin as to the sanitary conditions under which the milk and cream are produced and handled. I am arranging to have some samples of imported milk examined as to bacterial contamination and presence of dirt and I will give consideration to the subject of regulations in relation both to milk and to cream.

  Granite.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether granite is classified in the Board of Trade Returns as a manufactured article or as raw material.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,): Imports and exports of granite are not distinguished separately in the Official Trade Accounts, but they are included in groups which are classified as wholly or mainly manufactured.
  MR. MYERasked if the Birmingham Council had entered into a contract for the supply of Norwegian granite.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of such a Question.

  Bass Rock.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when the new lighthouse and fog horn on the Bass Rock will be completed.
  MR. KEARLEY: The lighthouse is already completed and the fog signal is expected to be in operation in May.

  Engine Tenders.
  MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the increase in the working of passenger trains by engines running tender first; whether the provision of weather-boards for tenders meets the reqirements of the Railway Department of his Board; and will he state what recommendations, if any, have been made to the railway companies on the matter.
  MR. KEARLEY: When the attention of the Board of Trade has been drawn to cases in which trains are worked by engines running tender first they have communicated with the companies concerned, and have said that the practice is one which they do not regard with favour. Each case is considered on its merits, but as a rule I should say that the provision of weather-boards would not meet all objections. If my hon. friend desires to bring any particular cases to my notice I will have inquiry made.

  Waggon Buffers.
  MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether there was a clear understanding from the railway companies in the year 1900 that after the ordinary course of life of the dead-buffered waggons then in existence they would be replaced by the modern type of spring-buffered waggons; whether he is aware that during the past two years the London and
  1034
  North Western Railway Company have built several new dead-buffered waggons and placed them in traffic; and whether he will now consider the further increased danger of longer trains and heavier loads of engines, with a view of asking the railway companies to abolish this class of buffer on their rolling stock.
  MR. KEARLEY: The Board of Trade are in communication with the London and North Western Railway Company on the subject of my hon. friend's Question and will inform him of the result in due course.

  Life Saving on the River Tyne.
  MR. CURRAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the life-saving facilities on the River Tyne are regarded as being inadequate in cases of emergency; and whether he will have steps taken to place the lifeboat service on a more satisfactory basis.
  MR. KEARLEY: I am not aware that the life-saving facilities on the Tyne are regarded as inadequate. The question of the lifeboat service is one for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, but if any representations are made to us, we shall be happy to communicate them.

  Railway Inquiry.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has taken any steps to inaugurate an inquiry into the railway system of the United Kingdom; and, if so, whether he will state the nature and composition of the committee and the scope and purpose of the inquiry.
  MR. KEARLEY: My right hon. friend is not in a position to answer this Question at the moment as stated in the Answer given by him to the hon. Member for Stockport on the 16th. He hopes to be in a position to give a definite answer next week.

  Unemployment in New York.
  *MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade it he can state the total number of unemployed persons in need of relief in New York city in January, 1908.
  MR. KEAELEY: His Majesty's Embassy at Washington reporting on 9th January stated the number of unemployed persons in New York City in need of relief as 125,000.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many immigrants landed in New York, disturbing the labour market during the same period?
  *MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: Can the light hon. Gentleman at the same time say how many emigrants left New York in January, through inability to find work?
  [No Answers were returned.]

  Norwegian Granite Quarries.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will obtain from His Majesty's consuls in Norway particulars of the wages paid to, and the hours worked by, the workmen engaged in the quarries of granite in Norway which supply the granite used in the Government dockyards.
  MR. KEARLEY: I will endeavour to obtain information with regard to wages and hours worked in granite quarries in Norway.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Irish workmen are particularly interested in this matter, seeing that Norwegian granite is being-used for the extension works at Haul-bowline.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: Will the hon. Gentleman include in his inquiry on the question of the rate of wages paid in Norwegian quarries, whether a living wage can be secured for the men employed on the steamers which bring over the granite. Is he aware that the Birmingham Corporation are using this granite instead of English in consequence of its cheapness?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Enfield Lock Factory—West's Claim for Compensation.
  MR. BRANCH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury
  1036
  whether his attention has been directed to the case of a man named West, recently employed at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield Lock, and injured whilst so employed; whether he has considered the conditions under which this man was discharged, the series of accidents by which he was disabled, and the compensation which he has received; and whether he is willing that West should be examined by Sir Dyce Duckworth so that an accurate report of West's injuries may be obtained, and consideration given to his claim to further compensation.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): Yes, sir, I am well acquainted with the circumstances of this case, and I admit that they are very distressing. I regret, however, that I cannot undertake to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion as the man has received the maximum amount of compensation to which he was entitled, unless it can be shown that his capacity to contribute to his own support has been totally destroyed by his injuries. This, however, can hardly be the case seeing that those injuries did not prevent him from being retained in the service with undiminished wages until he was finally retired in the ordinary course on the ground of age.

  Loyal Philanthropic Friendly Society.
  MR. WALSH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that a memorial protesting against the transfer of the Loyal Philanthropic Friendly Society to the Royal Liver has been forwarded to the Chief Registrar, on the ground that a material consideration as to the allocation of a sum of £27,000 was withheld prior to the consent of the members being obtained to the proposed transfer; whether he will instruct the Chief Registrar to see that the interests of members are adequately safeguarded before such transfer receives official sanction; and will he say what steps the Chief Registrar is taking to assure himself that the consent of the requisite number of members has been obtained to the transfer.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. The Chief Registrar informs me that he only received the memorial this morning, and that he has not had time to examine it. The Friendly Societies Act, 1896, however, contains stringent regulations governing cases like this, and the Chief Registrar, of course, will not register the special resolution required under the Act until he is satisfied that the conditions of the Act have been complied with, nor without giving the memorialists an opportunity of being heard, if they so desire. The hon. Member may therefore rest assured that the interests of all parties will be properly safeguarded.

  Aberdeen Fishery Cruisers.
  CAPTAIN WARING: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland what, if any, precautions are taken by those responsible for the movements of the fishery cruiser from Aberdeen to prevent the knowledge of intended cruises coming to, or being obtained by, the masters or crews of trawlers.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The commanders of cruisers do not communicate any of their instructions to any of the crew before leaving the harbour, and I am advised that there is no reason to suppose that the instructions issued by the Fishery Board as to the movement of their cruisers are divulged.

  Illegal Trawling in the Moray Firth.
  MR. SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he can state the number of vessels under a foreign flag that have been reported from the beginning of July, 1907, up to the end of January of this year for trawling in the Moray Firth; how many prosecutions have taken place, and how many convictions have been obtained for the period referred to; and the number of prosecutions now pending.
  MR. SINCLAIR: Nineteen different vessels were reported during the period mentioned on seventy-five different occasions. In one of these cases so far has a prosecution been instituted and a conviction
  1038
  obtained, but no prosecutions are pending. Forty-six prosecutions took place early in July for offences committed prior to the beginning of that month, and twenty-nine convictions were obtained, twenty-three of which were for offences committed in the Moray Firth.
  MR. WATT: Does the dictum of the Lord Chancellor override the unanimous dictum of the Judges of the Court of Session in dealing with this matter?
  MR. SINCLAIR: I am not aware to what dictum my hon. friend refers.

  Spawning Herrings.
  MR. AINSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the quantity of spawning herrings now being brought into the Glasgow market; and whether he will impress upon the Fishery Board the necessity of taking immediate steps to prevent the taking of such fish, and to avoid the damage to which the herring-fishing trade of the West of Scotland is in consequence exposed.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I am advised that it is a fundamental fact of the herring fishery that the fish are at their very best when spawning, and all efforts are put forth to take them at that time, when they command the highest price in the market. The herring approaches the Scottish coasts to spawn, and to prohibit their capture would do serious injury to the herring fishing industry. I am aware that the herring fishing in the Firth of Clyde has recently been very successful.
  MR. WATTasked if a meeting of Clyde fishermen had not unanimously voted in favour of a close time for the Clyde? And would the right hon. Gentleman give effect to that desire?
  MR. BEALE: And has not another meeting been equally unanimous against that?
  MR. SINCLAIR: I think the hon. Member for the College Division will

  1039
  find an Answer to his interrogation in the Question of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire.

  Lord Ashtown's Gamekeepers.
  MR. POWER: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland with reference to the discharge from prison of two gamekeepers in the employment of Lord Ashtown, who were recently sentenced at the Ballymacarberry petty sessions, from what sources and by what means did the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Justices fully acquaint themselves with the facts of the case within less than twenty-four hours from the time of the conviction of these two men, and without obtaining the views of the chairman who presided at the petty sessions on the occasion; and had Lord Ashtown an opportunity of laying his views on the case directly or indirectly before those responsible for the discharge of these men, either subsequent to or shortly before their conviction.
  THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): I am afraid I cannot add anything to the replies which my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary gave to the hon. Member's previous Questions on this subject. It would be entirely contrary to precedent to discuss, by way of Question and Answer in this House, the circumstances attending the exercise of the Lord Lieutenant's prerogative in such cases.
  MR. POWER: The right hon. Gentleman has not said how the views of the minority of the bench were ascertained.
  MR. CHERRY: I am afraid I cannot answer that without going into the whole matter, and I understand the rule is that matters of this sort should not be discussed.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: It was done in connection with the release of the Gweedon prisoners.

  Lord Ashtown and Mrs. Minnie Walsh.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a paragraph of a letter addressed by Mrs. Minnie Walsh
  1040
  to Mr. Trench, Lord Ash-town's agent, on the 2nd September, 1907, when she wrote, "I have been counting the minutes since seeing you hoping to hear good news this morning from Woodlawn, but as there is nothing in either the enclosed letter or the Irish Times I begin to fear it did not come off; if so, what an awful disappointment, enough to break one's hearts: whether this paragraph referred to the explosion at Woodlawn Church, which five men had been solicited to perpetrate in the anonymous letters produced at the recent trial in Dublin; whether, on 3rd September, after the receipt of the above-mentioned letter, Mr. Trench gave £5 to Mrs. Minnie Walsh to aid her in continuing her investigations; and whether the Irish Government will take effective steps to further investigate this transaction.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, will he say, in view of the disgraceful insinuations conveyed in this and former Questions on the subject, whether there is the slightest evidence in the papers or the facts which have come to his knowledge to show that Lord Ashtown was in any way connected with these anonymous letters?
  MR. CHERRY: If the hon. Member had been present at the debate the other day—
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I was.
  MR. CHERRY: He might have heard me, and the Chief Secretary as well, say distinctly that we saw no evidence that Lord Ashtown was in any way connected with the letters. My attention has been called to the letter referred to in the Question, but as a criminal charge is pending against Mrs. Walsh in connection with it I refrain from offering any opinion upon it. The other facts stated in the Question appear to be correct, except that it was upon the 5th, not the 3rd, of September that Mr. Trench gave £5 to Mrs. Walsh. I have already stated that I consider his action in doing so most unwise under the circumstances, but it is only fair to him to say that before doing so he received

  1041
  another letter from her dated 4th September, in which she asked for £2 or £3 by way of loan. In answer to the last paragraph of the Question, I shall consult my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary as to whether any, and, if so, what, further steps can be taken in the matter.
  MR. DILLON: Is it the intention of the Crown to put Mrs. Walsh on her trial again?
  MR. CHERRY: That is still under consideration.
  *MR. J. MACVEAGH: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the recent appeal of Lord Ashtown for increased financial support, in which it is stated that: "much more might be done in the direction where it is most needed, if only the funds were adequate to the needs?"
  MR. CHERRY: I receive regularly a copy of the document to which my hon. friend refers.
  *MR. J. MACVEAGH: You do not send him any money.
  MR. JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether any of the letters produced at the late trial of Mrs. Minnie Walsh were in the hands of the Crown before 3rd September; and, if so, can he state how many, and what date the same were written.
  MR. CHERRY: I am informed that on 30th August immediately after the receipt of the second anonymous letter from Mrs. Walsh, Mr. Trench, Lord Ashtown's agent, took the two anonymous letters to the Inspector-General, and showed them to him. Mr. Trench kept the originals until 12th September, when he handed them over to the police. Copies of the material parts of these letters were furnished to the Inspector-General on or before 30th August, but none of the original letters were in the hands of the authorities prior to 3rd September.
  MR. DILLON: On what date was the last letter of the correspondence, amounting
  1042
  to sixteen letters, placed in the hands of the authorities?
  MR. CHERRY: I do not know, nor do I think it was ever placed in the hands of the authorities.
  MR. JOHN ROCHE: Am I to understand that of the fifteen letters produced at the trial only one was in possession of the Crown previous to the time the Member for the Division set the Crown in motion?
  MR. CHERRY: The letters were produced by Lord Ashtown at the trial—that is to say, the direct correspondence between Mr. Trench and Mrs. Walsh. The anonymous letters were placed in the hands of the police authorities in order that they might be investigated by an expert in handwriting. But extracts had previously been shown to the Attorney-General.
  MR. JOHN WARD: What was the date on which the authorities received the letter from Lord Ashtown's agent, dated 2nd September?
  MR. CHERRY: I do not know whether we ever had the original of that letter.

  Ballyquintin Point, County Down.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information as to the reasons for the delay of the Irish Lights Commissioners in erecting a lighthouse at Ballyquintin Point, County Down.
  MR. KEARLEY: The Commissioners of Irish Lights have made a proposal to improve the lighting in the vicinity of the entrance to Strangford Lough, not by the erection of a lighthouse at Ballyquintin Point, but by the establishment of a light vessel about four miles south-south-east of the entrance to the Lough. The matter is still under consideration by the Board of Trade.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Is it not the fact that the Commissioners approved a light being placed on this dangerous point some years since?

  1043
  Can the hon. Gentleman suggest any reason for this long delay? Have not serious wrecks occurred there?
  MR. KEARLEY: I can only say that the matter is receiving the attention of the Board of Trade.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Perhaps we can get a definite answer next week.

  Blocking Motions.
  MR. BOWLES: May I ask a Question of which I sent private notice to the Prime Minister, whether any further progress has been made with the negotiations with which the Government has undertaken to secure an amendment of the Standing Orders dealing with the practice of putting blocking Motions on the Paper?
  MR. ASQUITH (for Sir H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN): We have announced our willingness to move our Amendment to the Standing Orders as soon as we receive an assurance that it will be treated as non-controversial. We are awaiting that assurance from Members opposite. Perhaps the hon. Member will use his influence with his friends.
  MR. BOWLES: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been directed to the fact that unless this Amendment is made it will be within the power of any Member of this House, by putting down a Bill with an adequate title, to prevent discussion, for instance, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Waterford on Home Rule.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am quite aware of the abuses which the present rule permits. I am entirely favourable to the change, but it can only be carried out with the general consent of the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASasked as to the business for next week.
MR. ASQUITH: The principal business of next week will be the introduction of the Licensing Bill and the Education
1044
Bill. It is proposed to take the Education Bill on Monday and the Licensing Bill on Thursday. That happens to be a convenient arrangement, but, as we live in a suspicious and imaginative world, I think I had better add that, in regard to the future stages, the more important stages of these two measures. His Majesty's Government have not modified, and do not intend to modify, their expressed intention of giving precedence to the Licensing Bill. On Tuesday we propose to take the Committee stage, and, if no Amendment is made, the Third Reading of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill, and on Wednesday the same stages of the Land Values (Scotland) Bill. If by any chance, as through Amendments being made in Committee, we are not in a position to take the Third Reading of the Small Landholders Bill on Tuesday, we shall take that stage on Wednesday.

POST OFFICE ESTIMATES.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: With regard to the business for to-day, I do not know if the Postmaster-General remembers but it may be in the recollection of the House that the right hon. Gentleman promised that the Supplementary Estimates should not be taken until the changes which he proposed to make as a result of the Report of the Select Committee on the conditions of service and pay in the Post Office had been published and time given for their consideration. I find that the Paper is not to be obtained at the Vote Office, although I understand copies have been given to some few selected Members—those I believe who served on the Committee. I am not making complaint of that, but in view of the fact that the Paper is not available for the general body of Members. I wish to know whether, under the circumstances, it is intended to proceed with this Estimate?
*MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The Post Office circular has, it is true, only been given to the members of the Committee, but I thought as a matter of courtesy they should receive it. I certainly had no idea that it should be printed as a

1045
Parliamentary Paper, and I do not think that that has ever been done before. It was issued some days ago, and is an ordinary official publication, but not the publication I had in my mind when I spoke on this point before. I hope under the circumstances the right hon. Gentleman will not object to our proceeding with the Estimate to-night.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that previous revisions have been followed by laying a Paper on the Table of the House for the information of Members, giving a full account of the changes sanctioned and the immediate and ultimate cost? Still, I will not press the matter if the right hon. Gentleman says it would be inconvenient to postpone the Estimate, although we have had no such Paper in this case.
*MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Perhaps, I may be allowed to express my regret at the delay in publishing the revision. There has been great pressure at the Post Office in connection with it. But I will certainly give the House all the information it desires, although I do not really think that the publication of the Post Office circular with all its very minute details was necessary.

SELECTION (UNOPPOSED BILL COMMITTEES) (PANEL).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had selected the following Seven Members to be the Panel to serve on Unopposed Bill Committees under Standing Order No. 109: Sir David Brynmor Jones, Mr. Paulton, Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. Crombie, Mr. Beale, Mr. Hills, and Mr. Mooney.
Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.

  SALE OF WHISKY BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the Sale of Whisky, and to provide for the marking of casks and other vessels containing Whisky," presented by Mr. Williamson; supported by Mr. Murray, Mr. Cathcart Wason, and Sir Andrew
  1046
  Torrance; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 7th April, and to be, printed. [Bill 102.]

  ABSENT VOTERS BILL.
  "To facilitate the recording of Votes at Parliamentary Elections by fishermen, sailors, and other persons liable to habitual absence from their usual residence in pursuit of their calling," presented by Mr. Williamson; supported by Mr. McCrae, Sir Robert Ropner, Major Anstruther-Gray, Mr. Havelock Wilson, Mr. Rainy, Mr. Crombie, and Captain; Waring; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 7th April, and to be printed. [Bill 103.]
  SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS ACTS (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1907," presented by Mr. Mitchell-Thomson; supported by Mr. Younger, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Lamont, and Mr. Rainy; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 104.]
  AGED PENSIONERS BILL.
  "To provide Pensions for the Aged Deserving Poor," presented by Mr. Goulding; supported by Mr. Remnant, Mr. Hay, Mr. John William Wilson, Sir William Bull, Mr. Charles Craig, and Mr. Courthope; to be read a second time upon Friday, 6th March, and to be printed. [Bill 105.]
  PLACES OF WORSHIP (SITES) BILL.
  "To provide for the acquisition of Sites for Places of Worship by compulsory powers," presented by Mr. David Davies; supported by Sir Alfred Thomas, Mr. Herbert Roberts, Mr. Hay Morgan, and Mr. William Jones; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 106.]
  PLACES OF WORSHIP (ENFRANCHISEMENT) BILL.
  "To Enfranchise Places of Worship," presented by Mr. David Davies; supported by Sir Alfred Thomas, Mr. Herbert Roberts, Mr. Hay Morgan, and Mr. William Jones; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 107.]
  PUBLIC OFFICES SITES (EXTENSION) BILL.
  "To provide for the acquisition of land for the Extension of certain Public Offices in Westminster and of the Patent Office; and for certain other public purposes," presented by Mr. Harcourt; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 108.]

  PRIMOGENITURE BILL.
  "To alter the Law relating to the descent of land upon an intestacy," presented by Mr. Arnold Herbert; supported by Mr. Micklem, Mr. Stewart Smith, Mr. Stanger, Mr. Napier, Sir Albert Spicer, Mr. Herbert Craig, Mr.
  Haworth, and Mr. Beaumont; to be read a second time upon Monday, 6th April, and to be printed. [Bill 109.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on the Business of Supply, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  The House divided:—Ayes, 314; Noes, 73. (Division List No. 17.)

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY.

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1907–8.
    Revenue Departments.
    1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £260,000, be granted to His Majesty, 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 Post Office, including Telegraphs."
    *THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): I have to justify the Supplementary Estimate in the present year and still more to what it will lead in future years. The particular Supplementary Estimate is really a matter to which I need not refer. It affects certain proposals of what is called the Hobhouse Committee, but
    1056
    in most cases they are only matters in which payments have to be made at once, at the beginning of the month instead of at the end. What I think the House is really interested in is the future of this matter and the total expenditure which will be incurred in consequence of the Report of the Parliamentary Committee and the mode in which I propose to adopt that Report. I think it is necessary for me to trace the history of this matter. I regret, as every member of the Committee does, that the Chairman of the Committee, who took such immense trouble over it and had the matter so much at his fingers' ends, is unfortunately prevented from being with us, which makes it more difficult for me to carry out the task which I have before me. When I came into office the position was this. There had been previous inquiries into Post Office servants' wages, some conducted by Committees and some by the Postmaster-General. In every case I think the Post Office servants themselves condemned in advance these inquiries, and the last attempt to deal with the matter by means of a Business Committee has really rather a curious history. That Committee was appointed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, and the staff at that time objected to the appointment of the Committee, to its personnel and to its reference. Then the Committee reported, and my predecessor, Lord Stanley, no doubt for reasons which he thought fully justified his own action, objected to the action of the Committee in regard, I think, to the method in which they carried out their proceedings—namely, that they had not carried out their reference, and that they had exceeded it. Thus, the last inquiry we have had was repudiated in advance by the staff, and after the report, by the Government. That, of course, left the matter in a very difficult and unsatisfactory position. I found also on examining into it that for the last sixteen years or so, the staff—the Post Office servants of the operative class—had publicly declared that a tribunal of the character of a Parliamentary Committee and an inquiry of that nature, would alone be to them satisfactory and conclusive. I found, also, that a large majority of Members in all quarters

    1057
    of the House had pledged themselves to support the appointment of a Parliamentary Committee. I was not one of them. When I became Postmaster-General my record was immediately looked up by the staff, and I was glad to find that I had an absolutely blank record and had never voted on any postal subject, and that I thus had a free hand in regard to these matters. It appeared to me that the demand for a further inquiry by a Parliamentary Committee was, under all the circumstances of the case, a reasonable one. It was alleged that the staff were underpaid, and that being so, I think the argument for an inquiry was a strong one. Every Member of the House of Commons is quite willing to believe in the impartiality and justice of its own Committees, and therefore there appeared to be an opportunity of selecting a tribunal which would be satisfactory to both Parties, which could thrash the matter out and arrive at a satisfactory conclusion in the end. That being so, I proposed to my colleagues in the Government the appointment of such a Committee; and appointed it at a very early stage, in order that no time should be lost in carrying it out. The appointment of the Committee was received with universal gratification by all interested. Its composition was considered satisfactory. It was of a very representative character, representing all sections in the House, and the terms of reference were wide and were acceptable. As far as the Department is concerned, my desire was that they should describe to the Committee their position, and the policy and action of the Department (not necessarily my own), not in a hostile spirit, but with fairness and moderation; and I think it was recognised by the staff that the evidence given by the Secretary and by others was given with moderation and fairness and certainly with great lucidity. On the other hand, I desired that the staff should be given every facility for preparing and presenting their case, and I do not think any information was refused which would assist them in so doing. No less than 114 witnesses gave evidence for the staff, and I think gratification was expressed for the care, impartiality and thoroughness with which the Committee discharged
    1058
    their long and arduous duties. After an exhaustive inquiry of some eighteen months, the Committee reported in the terms which the House have before them in the Blue-book. The Report is that of the Committee as a whole. In such a Committee as that no one member is necessarily bound to every item, or proposition, or paragraph in the Report. They were a Committee of the House of Commons desiring to arrive at a common conclusion and to present a unanimous Report. They did, I understand, have many private meetings, like many Committees I myself have been on, at which they had discussions and even divisions which do not appear on the records of the Committee, but which had a great deal to do in bringing them to the harmonious conclusion stated in their Report. Therefore, so far as the Committee are concerned, I think I may say that it is a Report, with the qualification I have stated, of a Committee of the House of Commons. There is no use disguising the fact that when the Report was issued in some quarters it gave rise to considerable disappointment. I never knew a body appointed for the purpose of dealing with a question of salaries which did not give disappointment in some quarter. No one in this unlovely world does get what he desires, or, at all events, he does not get what he thinks he deserves, and, therefore, it was only human nature that those affected in this matter should be disappointed with the conclusions which the Committee came to. I should like to say this. It is not for me to advise or admonish the staff in regard to the attitude which they should assume towards the Report of the Parliamentary Committee. There was this great difference between this inquiry by a Committee of the House of Commons, and that which was made by what is called the Tweedmouth Committee, and that which was made by the Bradford Committee. In each of these cases the men had stated beforehand that they would not be bound by the decision come to as the result of the inquiry. In the case of the Parliamentary Committee it was a tribunal of their own choosing. When I placed the matter of the appointment of the Committee before the Cabinet I was clearly

    1059
    under the impression, and I left my colleagues under the impression, that I was proposing the appointment of a tribunal whose conclusions would be considered, taken broadly, as binding. And, further, so far as I am concerned. I intended in the circumstances of the appointment to accept the Committee's findings whatever those findings might be. And I think I may state equally confidently, without fear of contradiction, that that was the view held by the Post Office staff as a whole, and that the Committee was accepted by them in the spirit in which it was given. I do not think that hon. Members who undertook to support the proposal for the appointment of the Committee would have done so unless they thought that the staff would accept the decision of such a Committee. When I speak of the acceptance of the Report of the Committee I do not mean that it was to carry with it acceptance of the terms for all time to come. In regard to these matters naturally a time comes when changes must be made. The findings of a Committee would be of such a cast-iron nature, that when anomalies arise or when it appears that improved conditions can be carried out from time to time the Report of the Committee would prevent these improvements being carried out by the Postmaster-General. But, generally and broadly, I think we may take it that the general desire expressed at the time the Committee was appointed was that the conclusions to which it would come would practically be accepted. I confess that it is clear to me that if the decision of a Committee of that nature, appointed under these circumstances, is not to be accepted substantially as the verdict, especially by those who have asked for the tribunal, it is a very difficult thing to know how we are to extend these matters of inquiry. There is at present a demand for inquiries, especially in connection with the Civil Service; and generally boards of arbitration are asked in various quarters. But as I said, this is for the staff more than for myself. As regards my position as Postmaster-General my duty appeared to me a plain and clear one, and it was also the opinion of the Treasury. It was, broadly speaking, that I should accept
    1060
    the recommendations of the Committee in full where their recommendations were explicit and definite in regard to the remuneration of Post Office servants. I have been urged as apparently the decision of the Committee will not lead to contentment and satisfactory results to ignore the Report of the Committee and save the money for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is not my view at all. My primary reason for the appointment of the Committee was that any Government ought to be a good employer of labour, and that, if it could be shown that the conditions of employment in the Post Office fell short of the standard of a good employer, that standard should be brought up to a proper level. I was not prepared, however, much as I might deplore the way in which the Report was received, to withhold improvements in the conditions of the service recommended by the Parliamentary Committee for attaining that object. I think it will be equally clear to the House that under the circumstances of the appointment of the Committee I should not retry the case—a case which had by general consent been referred to a Parliamentary Committee for decision. It was also clear that if I could not retry the whole case, I could not here and there retry portions of it, and alter the decision of the Committee. I have been asked from various quarters—I think by almost every section of the staff—to retry, not necessarily the whole case, but to take their particular class and to consider their particular point. It appeared to me that that was an impossible position for me to take up—that it would be impossible for me to agree to new proposals in one case and to refuse to agree to them in another. It would be impossible to consider the desires of one class and decline to consider the desires of others. Really, that would have amounted to a retrial by myself of the whole case, and that I was not prepared to do nor do I think it would have been a proper course to pursue with reference to the House and to the Parliamentary Committee. My position was that I accepted the Report of the Committee, and that I would try to carry it out to the fullest possible extent. Then came the question

    1061
    of interpretation. There were certain definite scales proposed.
    SIR F. BANBURY: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that almost every section of the staff asked him to re-investigate the Report.
    *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: What I said, or, at all eve its, meant, was that in regard to the recommendations of the Committee there were certain points on which nearly every section of the staff thought that something better should have been recommended in their case, and my position was that if I had accepted that view in one case, I could not refuse it in another. That appeared to me to be an untenable position. I think the right position was to base myself on the recommendations of the Committee as a whole and not attempt to re-try the case in whole or in parts. Then came the question of interpretation. There were definite scales in the recommendations of the Committee which were sufficiently clear to enable one to interpret them with the greatest ease and to the fullest possible extent. Here also in regard to interpretation there could be no question as to the right course for me to pursue. When I had accepted the recommendations of the Committee, the only course open to me was to put them in force in the way the Committee intended and desired. To have accepted them and then, as I have been urged to do, to have interpreted them in a way the Committee did not intend would have been tantamount to upsetting their decision by indirect means. This might have been popular, but I do not think that would have been a straight-forward or honest course for me to pursue. It appeared to me that the recommendations of the Committee should be interpreted in the way the Committee desired. Apart from the actual scale of remuneration, and where I have been able in these matters to act freely, I have taken a liberal view, and I have endeavoured to improve the conditions of labour in the Post Office. There were one or two special points in regard to the matter to which my attention was specially drawn. The Committee recommended that each officer
    1062
    should be raised to the minimum, or "age pay" of his class, i.e, the minimum in those cases where there was no scale and in the others the "age pay" up to twenty-two years in the case of postmen and twenty-one years in other cases, and that that should take place at once. That has been done, and also everyone over that age who was not getting the age pay has already been raised to that point in the scale of his particular class. They also conceded what is called the technical increment. I understand that their desire was to encourage ability and intelligence. The old technical increment of 2s. 4d. did not extend beyond the maximum. The Committee recommended that the technical allowance should extend above the maximum. They added, however, that the examination should be a searching, not a perfunctory, test of the technical or professional knowledge of the telegraphists. The matter is a difficult one, but I have done my best to arrive at what would be in the nature of a practical and searching test which will at the same time not exclude the telegraphist of intelligence who really desires to improve his position. Both the examination and the manipulative test are in the nature of experiments. We shall see by the light of experience whether the experiment is satisfactory or not, and whether the test had been fixed too high or too low. What I desire to do is, as intended by the Committee, both by examination and manipulative test to reward the ability of the telegraphist of intelligence who desires to improve his position. The next point, classification, is a question of interpretation, and is more difficult and more complicated than that with which I have just dealt. In regard to London the matter was simple enough. The Committee recommended that the old four zones of wages should be reduced to three to depend on the cost of living. The result which came out was, from the London postman's point of view, very satisfactory. It was found from the Board of Trade Return that the cost of living in London as compared with other parts of the kingdom, was high, and in nearly every case the men went up. In only one or two cases is the scale put down in London, and that is because, as shown

    1063
    by the Board of Trade Return, the cost of living in those parts is lower than in other districts of the London area. There is one very important point in all cases of classification that I wish to make perfectly clear, and that is that where a man's office is put up a class—that is to say, where there is an increase in the maximum—he goes to that maximum without question. But where his district is put down a class, he himself is not affected at all—he goes up to his old maximum. It is only the new entrants to a class that are affected by the new classification. I now come to the question of the classification of provincial postmen. I ought to explain first, that before the revision came into force there was one system of classification of postmen largely founded on the cost of living, and a totally different classification, of sorting clerks and telegraphists founded on units of work, and a third classification for the supervising classes. The Committee recommended, I presume for simplicity, that all these classifications in the provinces should be combined into one, and the seven classes reduced to five to form a fresh and unified classification. The recommendations of the Committee will be found in Paragraphs 258 and 341 of the Report. They say: "It is both desirable and possible to have a satisfactory classification of the various towns and districts in the United Kingdom for the purpose of assigning to each its proper scale of wages," and they recommend that any classification should be based on the volume of work done as ascertained by the Post Office authorities, plus the cost of living as ascertained by the Board of Trade. They propose this rearrangement of the sorting clerk classes and further a reclassification of the postmen's classes on the same basis. Any classification putting together two classifications which are now dissimilar, must necessarily affect a considerable number of places. There must inevitably be a good deal of going up and a good deal of going down in regard to certain towns. The Committee fully recognised this themselves. In going into the matter carefully, it appeared to me, however, that if I carried out the recommendations of the Committee literally, and without elasticity, there
    1064
    would, in the lower classes, be some hardship to a very large number of future postmen who would have to go down in their classification by being assimilated to the classes of sorting clerks and telegraphists. I, therefore, with the consent of the Treasury, came to the conclusion that while the first three classes could be dealt with similarly, the last two must be dealt with differently, and that there must be a classification of the postmen on a different basis. But it is quite obvious that whatever classification is taken, founded partly on the volume of work and partly on the cost of living, it is necessary that there should be a considerable re-arrangement of classes and towns, increases and decreases. I am glad to know as far as we have been able to reclassify—although I have not yet got all the information—that a considerably larger number of these places will go up in their class, and therefore get an increase, than will have to come down. Let me repeat, wherever there is a change, if it is adverse, it does not affect the maximum of present officers, whereas, if it is advantageous, they will get all the benefit of it by going to the higher maximum. I had the advantage in regard to other points of discussing them with representatives of the men and on several of them my views were modified by these discussions. I hope that in many respects, as, for instance, in regard to stripes, trips, risk allowances, increments, writing duties, substitution, Sunday labour, half holiday and other matters of that description, I was able largely to meet their views. In regard to these matters I have, however, had to consult the Treasury, as the amended proposals in regard to classification will involve a very considerable charge on the Estimates. I must say that the Treasury has met me in a liberal way, where, in regard to this und in other ways I was able to show that a too strict interpretation of the recommendations of the Committee would involve some hardship. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire asked me at Question time to explain what the actual result would be on the postal service as a whole of the recommendations of the Committee if these were adopted. I do not think that he would wish me to go very minutely into the matter, because it is largely

    1065
    technical; but I will give in broad outline the general results which will ensue after the recommendations of the Committee are carried out in the main. As I have already, said it is not my business either to defend or to criticise the findings of the Committee. My business has been to adopt them in regard to questions of remuneration. But I think that too much attention has been drawn to, and too much stress laid on the scales themselves proposed by the Committee, and not enough attention has been attached to the very great improvement in other ways which will be conferred on the Post Office service by the recommendations of the Committee. Some perhaps do not get much meal, they all get malt; and in some cases both meal and malt. The conditions of the service has been considerably improved, and at the same time the scale of remuneration in many cases has been raised, and the two things must be taken together in order to appreciate what the result will be on the service as a whole. Next year, 1908–9, the increased expenditure which will fall on the taxpayers in consequence of the recommendations of the Committee will amount to something like £470,000 or £480,000. That amount will increase as years go on, and the ultimate cost will reach between £600,000 and £700,000 a year, rather nearer the latter figure than the former. It is only fair to say also that it is only two and a half years since in another way the Post Office servants also received a very large pecuniary benefit. They are now receiving under the Stanley Revision some £270,000 additional a year, and will eventually receive in future years £370,000. They are now going to have the benefit of a second revision following upon the Hobhouse Committee, and taking these two revisions together, the Post Office servants will benefit in the coming year to the extent of three-quarters of a million and to the extent of a million in future years. I think the House will agree that that is no inconsiderable sum to increase the wages of Post Office officials by in three years.
    *MR. GEORGE FABER: May I ask what is the percentage of increase?
    *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am afraid I cannot recollect the figures of the percentage
    1066
    on our full expenditure if that is what the hon. Member means.
    *MR. GEORGE FABER: On the wages.
    *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am sorry I have not the figures, but I will let the hon. Member know. Then I want to point out with regard to the scheme recommended by the Committee that the scale is increased in some cases at both the top and the bottom. But I am sure, after reading the Report of the Committee and studying their recommendations, that what they were chiefly impressed with was, that those who receive the lowest wage in the Post Office are those who deserve most consideration, and were those who ought to receive larger increases in proportion to the others. They evidently thought, and I very cordially agree with them in the general principle, that there is not in the Post Office in the lower scales a proper living wage, and what they have done, and I think it will be a great benefit to this branch of the postal service, is that while they have not increased in many instances the maximum sum where they thought the maximum sum was sufficient, they have in so many cases at twenty one years, twenty - two years, or later given an appreciable increase of the amount that the man or woman is receiving at that age—an age at which the increase they recommend will be of the greatest possible advantage. That seems to me to be the general principle upon which they acted and I have carried out their recommendations. But I should like, if the House would allow me, just to take one class and show what will be the actual result of the recommendations of the Committee with regard to it. I will take the postman as an illustration, because he comes more under our eye than any other branch of the service, and everybody desires that he should be well treated and receive a proper wage. In the lower grade the maximum wages of 18s. and 20s. have been raised to the maximum of 21s., and they have also raised in some cases the minimum wage of the lowest scale of wages. Let me say this, we are sometimes told that this scale, or the other scale is too low

    1067
    and that it does not represent the fixed wage received by others. That is perfectly true, but no scale wage will ever at its lowest point equal the fixed wage which is settled and will not be increased. That is obvious; you cannot have it both ways. These men in the Postal Service have a low wage to begin with; gradually they reach the higher level, and this process of advancement is different from the case of the ordinary labouring man, who has to be content with a fixed wage when he is young as well as when he is old. Further, the House in regard to many of these cases must not take this scale of minimum wages as being all these men really gain from their State service. The postman, I am glad to think, has many advantages in other respects, and I think you may put it broadly that the man who has a wage of 18s. or 20s. a week at twenty-one years of age is really receiving what is roughly speaking equivalent to 24s. Above twenty-one the man on the lowest scale who is receiving 21s. as a maximum by the time he has risen to the maximum in stripes, uniform, and other ways, will be really earning over 30s. a week in cash and privileges. I do not think that is quite appreciated when people talk of scales of wages, and of the-recommendations of the Committee. The net increase during next year, the immediate increase for the London, provincial and assistant postmen, which will follow from the recommendations of the Committee will be £80,000 a year. In addition to that the Committee recommended that the stripe period should be reduced after the first five years from five to four years. At present the postman has to serve five years for every stripe for which he gets 1s. a week, but the Committee recommend that in future that period shall be reduced from five to four years. In connection with that matter the Postman's Federation asked me to make the proposal retrospective. That is to go back so that every five years a man has served in the past shall be reduced to four in counting for stripes. After consulting the Treasury we did not think the recommendations of the Committee, which obviously provide for the future and not for the past, could be put into force
    1068
    with a retrospective increase. But I am glad to say I obtained the assent of the Treasury to this, that instead of the new system coming into operation as these other changes do from 1st January, it shall come into force from the last period at which a man obtained his stripe, so that he will not have to wait for a period of five years. Thus if a man has served four years since his last stripe he will get his fresh stripe from January 1st. If he has served for more than four years he will carry on the additional time towards the next four years. The ultimate result of the stripe addition for the postman will be about £30,000, but there are other branches of servants who will receive it, and the whole total will be £33,000. The proposal to which I have just referred with the Treasury will bring into operation this year nearly half that sum. In addition to this, postal servants benefit in other ways, but I do not think the Committee will desire me to go through each class in detail, and I really must apologise for detaining it at this length, but I think they will see that it is necessary. There are two classes, however, about which I should like to say a word. The one is the question of the women, of whom there are a very large number employed in the Post Office, and I believe that many of them are active "suffragettes." I am glad to think that the Committee recognise that the women in the service of the State are not sufficiently paid at the bottom of the scale or at the top of the scale, and they have made recommendations which will involve very considerable increases in the pay of the women, amounting to many thousands a year. I think that will be an increase to which everybody wilt give their blessing. While the Committee made appropriate recommendations in regard to this class of workers, it must also be remembered with regard to the classes as a whole, that the supervising officers are receiving in a large number of cases very considerable increases of their salaries. Of course, that is not only of immediate advantage to those who are holding these positions, but it is also an increase in regard to the positions on promotion of those who are below them, so that the increases given to the supervising

    1069
    officers may be added to the benefits which, are given by the Committee to other classes of the postal service. Then in addition to the actual increase to which I have referred, there are a large number of proposals made by the Committee which will go very much in the direction of improving the conditions of service. They are some of them rather technical questions and refer to such things as trip and risk allowances, the question of Sundays, and of substitutes, and so forth. My right hon. friend the Member for East Worcestershire will understand these terms, but I am afraid that to most members of the Committee they will not convey much. But at all events all these are practically cash additions to the recommendations of the Committee in regard to the question of scale. The Committee recommend this change, with which I also cordially agree, that no assistant postman shall remain an assistant postman in the future for more than two years without being offered an established appointment. This will also apply to learners, and no learner will be a learner for more than two years without being offered an established appointment. That will put an end to what has occasionally happened in the past to these assistant postmen and learners in having their service spread over some of the best years of their lives without being able to obtain an established appointment.
    MR AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman says they will not be allowed to remain more than this time without being offered these appointments. Does that mean that if a permanent appointment is not offered to these officials, say because there are no appointments open, they will be dismissed.
    *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: No, I mean exactly the opposite. What I meant was this, that in the future every assistant postman and every learner will be offered at the end of his two years, if not previously, an established appointment. Perhaps I ought to add this, it will not be possible always to offer that appointment to a learner
    1070
    or an assistant postman in his own office, and if an offer is made to them elsewhere and is refused, our liability will be discharged, but the intention is that at the end of two years, if not before, the offer of an established appointment shall be made. Then there is another question in regard to which I entirely agree with the Committee. It is their recommendation in regard to casual and auxiliary labour in the Post Office. I should like to say of the casual and auxiliary labour in the Post Office that without any reflection on them, I do not think that it is a right system that a Public Department should have as much casual and auxiliary labour as we have had in the past. It is, however, a very difficult problem how best to reduce it, because establishment appointments cannot be created beyond what are sufficient for the service. The Department desires to reduce auxiliary labour to the lowest point; but it cannot abolish it altogether. As to Bank Holidays, anyone who works on Bank Holidays at all will be given a day off at some other time. The remuneration for night work will be increased, because in future it will be reckoned from eight o'clock instead of from ten. The attendances of postmen will be improved. Overtime ought to be carefully watched and checked, though, thanks to the public, it cannot be abolished altogether, owing to the irregularity of the pressure in the postal service. As to the insanitary condition of some of the post offices, the Post Office is not the only Department concerned in the question, but the recommendation of the Committee will strengthen the hands of both departments. The other class to which I desire to refer is the engineering branch of the postal service. As a result of the Committee's recommendations—and no doubt largely due to the presence on the Committee of the two Labour Members—the wages of both skilled and unskilled labour will be pat on a basis on which they have never stood before. These wages, in my opinion, have not been up to the outside standard. I have myself often thought that, while the Fair Wages Resolution was being enforced, and was very useful to bring contractors up to the proper rate, some branches of the Government Service were taking the mote out of the eyes of the contractors, while

    1071
    forgetting the beam in their own. In the whole of the engineering department the immediate advance of wages and salaries will amount to no less than £70,000 a year, and the hours, in some cases, will be improved. As to the general position, many of the recommendations of the Committee are in a direction in which the Department has always endeavoured to go; but the necessary money or opportunity has not always been forthcoming. I have a very difficult and delicate task in carrying out this revision, and I must ask great indulgence while I am trying to fulfil the duties laid on me by the Report of the Committee. I have always stated and have endeavoured to act on the view that a Government Department should be a good employer of labour. I do not think that the Post Office service asked to be treated as a privileged class; but there are three privileges which they do enjoy—a minimum wage, security and continuity of employment, and pensions for old age. The Committee was appointed to see how far in other respects the service conditions fell short of the proper standard. The Committee has made certain recommendations, and those I accept, and it is for the House to say whether they endorse their recommendations and mine. We all recognise and much appreciate the heavy labour thrown on the Committee, and the efficient way in which an irksome, disagreeable, and thankless task has been discharged. In endorsing the findings of that Committee, I ask the House not to grudge the large sum necessary for such improvements in the conditions of a very efficient and deserving body of public servants.
    *MR. CLAUDE HAYexpressed his desire, before dealing with the various points of the speech of the Postmaster-General, to thank him for the unwavering courtesy he had always shown to those connected with the Committee and all those who had had to approach him on the various details of his various departments. He shared also the regret of many hon. Gentlemen at the enforced absence of the Chairman of the Committee, who spared no pains in drafting the Report of the Committee, which was in truth his own Report. With that preface he ventured to say
    1072
    that every Member of the Committee would agree, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, that it was only right that the State should be a model employer of labour. He believed three main principles should be strictly observed. First of all, every man and woman employed ought to be in receipt of a fair living wage, and every man when he had reached an age when he might be supposed to have a family to maintain should be earning sufficient to support them in comfort and decency. In the next place, the hours of labour should be such as not to endanger the health or impair the energies of the workers. Lastly, the conditions under which the work was done should be at least as favourable to the health and comfort of the employees as those of the best conducted factory or workshop. Those who read the Report of the Committee and the evidence taken before it would be satisfied that in the past the Post Office had failed to fulfil perfectly any of these conditions. It had in certain cases fallen very far short of a much lower standard. The wages, especially of the younger men and women, had been often grossly inadequate at some of the offices, and the sanitary arrangements of a good many had been such as no private employer would have dared to tolerate in view of the existence of the Factory and Health Acts. Coming to the scales of pay laid down by the Committee and adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, he desired to say, first of all, that they were all aware of the fact that the scale as applied by the right hon. Gentleman had created a deal of disappointment among the postal officials, who would have liked the change to have been more drastic. In that they had his sympathy, because he believed that if the improvement had been greater the settlement would have been more permanent. At the same time he did not share the views of those who believed that he and those who thought with him should have refused to acquiesce in the Report because the scale of pay had not been raised to a higher standard. Not to have agreed to the Chairman's Report would have been to prevent its being unanimous, and it would have deprived it of the authority which unanimity would give it, and

    1073
    resulted in the Committee's work being whittled away, and the Report shelved by the reactionary influences to be found in every organisation. Although the Report fell short of the demands of many of the employees one must recognise that it marked a great step ahead and placed the staff in a better position than they were before. The Report involved a considerable sum of money, and he believed the House as a whole would support the view of the Committee that they were right in concentrating their attention upon increasing the minimum rather than increasing the maximum of wages. He had heard with great pleasure the announcement that the Postmaster-General had adopted the scale whereby the position of female sorters and telegraphists would be substantially improved. They had been grossly underpaid. The right hon. Gentleman in his statement had rather led them to believe that his adoption of the revision would apply to all the existing staff; but unless he was greatly misinformed, there were many sections of the postal servants to whom that revision would not apply, and to whom it would be a dead letter. There were, for instance, certain classes in the Engineers' Department, in regard to which the conditions set forth in the revision would only apply to new entrants. That was not the intention of the Committee. From first to last in drafting the Report the vital principle in the minds of the Committee was that every postal servant should benefit from the recommendations contained in the Report. He would ask the Postmaster-General if in the revision he found any hardships not to give a pedantic interpretation to the language of the Report, but to give it a wide and generous interpretation, and one which would be sure to convey the obvious intention of the Committee. There were one or two cases which seemed to him inexplicable, and could not be justified by the Report of the Committee. In the case of the telegraphists, for example, he would quote two instances with which he was familiar personally—he referred to the case of the Lombard Street and Threadneedle Street Post Offices. Telegraphists at Threadneedle Street Post Office would receive 65s. a week, while
    1074
    those at the Lombard Street Post Office, which was only just across the road, would receive 63s. a week. If that were so the Government in this instance were repeating exactly the iniquities of which complaint had been made. The men in both those post offices passed exactly the same examinations and belonged to the same grade—whatever official hair splitting and technique might declare—and they got into either of these offices, if he might say so, by a mere fluke. It was merely a question of different buildings in which the same work was being performed. It seemed to him all the more indefensible seeing that the telegraphists at the Central Office received 65s. plus technical allowance, whilst the cable room staff were recreated from the Central Office staff. He hoped the Postmaster-General, before this debate concluded, would give them some further information and a satisfactory assurance on this point. And now with regard to the technical test. The Committee after due consideration, reported that the old technical test was perfunctory and should be revised. But it seemed to him that the authorities at St. Martin's-le-Grand had gone from one extreme to another because they were now imposing a new test, and one unresonably severe. He desired the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this matter forthwith because the test seemed to be absurdly high.
    *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: May I point out that these tests refer only to officers working particular instruments to which they have been accustomed.
    *MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he gathered from what the right hon. Gentleman had said that the trouble to which he had referred would not arise in the future. The technical test question seemed to him to be giving a good deal of trouble and was causing a considerable amount of irritation, and that was why he was anxious that it should be dealt with without any further delay.
    *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: If the hon. Member will only read the figures given in the Report he will see that that is not necessary, as it is not causing either trouble or irritation.
    *MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he was very glad the Postmaster-General had been able to remove a misapprehension. He would now proceed to deal with those details in the Committee's recommendation which the Postmaster-General did not propose to carry out. First of all, there was the case of the sorters employed on night duty. It seemed to him very undesirable that the same man should be employed on night duty for more than four weeks at a stretch. From whom did the objection to this reform recommended by the Committee come? Did it come from the men now employed permanently on night duty, or from others who were not permanently employed? If from the latter he did not think the objection had much weight.
    *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The recommendation about night duty, I may point out, did not commend itself to those who were specially interested in that work, and the association representing the sorters actually asked me I not to carry it out. Of course, as the sorters themselves did not desire it carried out I was very glad to meet their wishes in the matter.
    *MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he was pleased to receive that information, and he only wanted to know the reason why.
    *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: It says so I in the Report.
    *MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the telegraphists and sorters preferred the present system was directly in conflict with much of the evidence given before the Committee. He was, however, quite satisfied from one point of view, and that was that the weekly half-holiday would be granted "where the staff desired it." He thought the Committee should be assured that there could be no possibility of official or departmental pressure being put upon the men; they should be absolutely free agents in the matter.
    *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Certainly.
    *MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid the Postmaster-General had referred to a matter-in which he took a very keen interest, and he had passed very lightly over it. The subject he alluded to was in Paragraphs 54 and 62, viz., the relations between the Post Office and the Office of Works. He thought his colleagues would bear him out when he said that the Committee were strongly of opinion that all the work now done by the Office of Works for the Post Office should be taken from the Office of Works and put under the Postmaster-General; or, in other words, that the Postmaster-General should be master in his own house and be able to run his own business; without having to go cap in hand to another Department. It was against common sense that such an arrangement should be allowed to continue when they remembered that the Post Office, next to the Army and Navy, employed a far larger number of men than any other Department of the State. The evidence before the Committee showed disgraceful delay by the Office of Works in carrying out the most ordinary repairs necessary for the minimum of comfort of any of the staff and repairs which were absolutely necessary if the first principles of health as affecting those employed were to be observed. He knew the difficulties of the situation, and he was aware how the Treasury would put every obstacle in the way as well as the Office of Works, but nevertheless he advised his right hon. friend to pluck up his courage and if he brought about this reform his regime would be marked not only by many of the advantages which he had already cited, but by the fact that he would be the man who had made himself master in his own house. The Postmaster-General had also skimmed over the question of medical inspection, upon which he asked him to give them a little more information. In Paragraphs 47 and 48 of their Report the Committee did not mince words as to their view of the Chief Medical Officer, and he did not hesitate to say that the impression left upon his mind was that that officer had not been doing his duty to the extent which they might reasonably expect, and that much of the discontent of the staff, and many of the complaints made were due to this officer's negligence. He

    1077
    regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not announced that he had taken in hand the drastic reorganisation of the Department. He was also very much surprised to see that simultaneously with the Report of the Committee upon this point, this particular official's salary had been raised by another £250 per annum. It would probably be said that this increase came about in the ordinary course of things, and independently altogether of any view expressed by the Committee or the Postmaster-General. Perhaps he would be allowed to refer now to one or two questions which the Committee by its terms of reference were not able fully to consider, but with which they dealt in their Report. In the first place, there was the all important question of civil rights. In that connection he could only speak for himself, because the Committee had declined by the casting vote of the Chairman to adopt his view. The Amendment he moved in Committee "would have conferred civil rights upon the postal staff where they were at present denied to them. He could not for the life of him see why those engaged in Post Office work, with perhaps the exception of certain high officials, should not enjoy the same civil rights as any other body of citizens. Why a man who pushed a red cart or basket on which the letters E.R. were painted was denied civil rights and the man who pushed the same vehicle with the name of some firm upon it was allowed to exercise those rights he could not understand. It could not be alleged that those two classes of employees stood in a different position. He sincerely hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give this matter his earnest attention and at the earliest possible moment lay proposals before Parliament on the subject. He did not think the matter could be lightly dimissed by saying that the Postmaster General was precluded from taking action upon it because there were certain rules which governed the whole of the Civil Service. The Committee declined to go into individual grievances, but it was quite clear from what came before them that the present system of dealing with individual grievances was most unsatisfactory. He was quite confident
    1078
    after all that was said before the Committee and in face of the evidence, direct and indirect, that it was absolutely necessary there should be some tribunal which could deal with individual grievances, and revise from time to time the conditions of Government employment in the Post Office. This brought him to the question of a permanent Board of Arbitration for the settlement of disputes between the State and its servants. The present moment seemed highly propitious for the Government to make proposals on this subject, because it was only quite recently that the President of the Board of Trade had been able to avert a very serious industrial dispute in connection with the railway industry of this country. They ought to bear in mind that the Government were really in a very serious position when they denied to their own servants those rights which the railway companies conferred on their employees. He regretted that a strike had taken place, but it was no use shutting their eyes to the fact.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: That is hardly a matter which ought to be dealt with on the Supplementary Estimates. We are now dealing with the money voted in the Supplementary Estimates and not with the general policy, which can only be properly discussed upon the presentation of the ordinary Estimates.
    *MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he welcomed the assurance from the Chair that they would have an opportunity to discuss this Report when the ordinary Estimates came up. He sincerely hoped that between now and the time when the Estimates were presented the inconsistencies in the interpretation of the Select Committee's Report, and the larger matters not touched upon by the revision, would receive the earnest and special attention of the Postmaster-General, so that they might have some permanent settlement of this Post Office trouble, and gain thereby not only the object the Government had in view in appointing this Select Committee, but also the maintenance amongst the staff of that efficiency upon which they prided themselves. He sincerely hoped they would see this year a settlement which would set at

    1079
    rest once and for ever the immense trouble which this subject had caused in the past. If the Postmaster-General did this, he was sure he would receive the warmest support from all parts of the House.
    MR. JOHN WARDsaid he was delighted to hear that the Postmaster-General was not going to place any obstacles in the way of the suggested amendments in regard to the working conditions of postal servants recommended by the Committee. He had been given to understand that previously a great deal of the trouble and difficulty had been caused by Post Office officials preventing the Postmasters by persuasion or by power, or by some occult power they possessed, from doing the things they wished to do for the purpose of removing grievances from this class of people. It was quite clear that if this charge had been possible and well founded against previous Postmasters-General, on this occasion they had a Minister who intended to carry out to the letter the recommendations of the Committee. He had been, very much struck by an observation which fell from the last speaker upon this subject. The hon. Member for Hoxton started by declaring that he thought the Post Office Committee ought to have made far more drastic proposals with regard to the remuneration of postal servants. He had not the slightest doubt considering the state of parties in this House, and the Party that had to control and be responsible for the finances of the country, and the management of the Post Office, no matter what drastic proposals had been suggested they would have been supported by the hon. Member for Hoxton. The value of that support could be best appreciated by two incidents which occurred in the House that day. The hon. Member had just dwelt upon the necessity of granting civil rights to the whole of the postal servants. He desired to point out that he was compelled in a very early part of the proceedings on the Committee to move a drastic resolution in reference to this subject, but later on the hon. Member for Hoxton moved another resolution which was not quite so drastic dealing with the same point. Only that very morning
    1080
    the hon. Member for Hoxton was questioning the Postmater-General, begging him to deprive certain sections of the postal service of their civil rights—
    *MR. CLAUDE HAYbegged the hon. Member's pardon; he never said anything of the sort. The hon. Member was entirely misrepresenting what he said and the object of his question. What he desired was to get the same civil rights for others, and the same rights which the Socialists now enjoyed.
    MR. JOHN WARDsaid the proper course for the hon. Member was to have endeavoured to obtain the same rights for the others, instead of attempting to deprive those who had already secured those rights. This subject of civil rights was an extremely important one and he held definite views upon it. He could not see why any officer of the State could not do just what he chose in his own time so long as the performing of his duty as a citizen did not prevent him doing his duty to his own Department of the State. He had never been able to ascertain the reason for this course of action, and the evidence given before the Committee had not in the least altered his opinion upon it. He agreed that the Committee had a very formidable task before it. He did not suppose they had satisfied everybody, and personally he never went on the Committee with the idea of satisfying any body but himself. He had given his careful attention to the evidence which he, as a Member of the Committee, was called upon to consider, and conscientiously the Committee had done their best and had given the best advice they could to the House upon a very difficult and intricate subject. He knew enough of labour negotiations himself to know that it was very rarely indeed that there was not a considerable minority who afterwards blamed the majority for not having demanded more. But the Committee were not aiming at finality; their aim was to do the best they could for the workmen of the Department and especially those in the lower grades, and in that he thought they had been successful. The Committee tried to do their best for the workpeople of the Department. When the House came to understand the

    1081
    number of employees whose interests were involved they would see what a difficult matter it was. There were about 80,000 males, 10,970 female servants, 17,000 boy messengers, 16,400 auxiliary postmen, and 22,000 sub-postmasters. He thought the Committee had succeeded in doing something, though it might not be everything that was expected by the officials and officers of the Department. The most difficult part of the whole controversy was the method the Postmaster-General was going to employ for the purpose of putting the recommendations of the Committee into practice. The Committee discovered that there seemed to be no general method of deciding the classification and payment for certain towns and districts. All kinds of suggestions were made as to the correct method of deciding the matter, and eventually the Committee decided upon two main principles to decide what the status of a town or district should be. The first was the volume of work in a district, and the second was the cost of living. He did not know how the Post Office decided the volume of work—how it counted up its units of works or anything of that kind. That was a matter entirely within the purview of the Postmaster-General and his permanent officers. So much depended upon the proper classification of towns and districts in the bringing of contentment to the Department that, if he were the Postmaster-General, he would not hurry this phase of the subject. He would give every opportunity for every possible consideration and objection with regard to any classification that might be made, because, perhaps, while the Postmaster-General would declare his own Department infallible, he (Mr. Ward) felt certain that all the Departments of the Government might not be equally infallible. For instance, figures with reference to rents in certain localities were put before the Committee for the purpose of guiding them in deciding this very important point. He took the town that he was personally acquainted with, Stoke-on-Trent, to see how far the information as to the cost of living, and especially of house accommodation was concerned, as he thought it would enable him to get a fair criterion of what the information was worth regarding places that he knew
    1082
    nothing about. It was said that in Stoke-on-Trent they could get four-roomed houses at from 3s. 9d. to 4s. 3d. a week. All he could say was that he would not ask any postal servant of any grade to live in a house at Stoke on 3s. 9d. a week. The thing was utterly absurd to anyone who knew the district. Therefore he would not hurry on that part of the business. He would not alter the maximum in any degree until he was positively certain that this information was beyond dispute and that every interest had been properly considered. The Postmaster-General had made no reference to a very important subject. He-had told them that the classification would be made—it might be in the making to-day—but he had not told them anything as to the length of time that the present classification was to be observed. Hon. Members would quite understand that the industrial circumstances of a locality changed every four or five years. The whole character of a district according to the influx of population or the state of a particular business sometimes entirely changed. The Postmaster-General should not aim at setting up a classification to-day that was going to last for ever. There ought to be some periodical re-examination of the classification, and he thought the period at the outside ought not to be more than three, four, or five years, so that the Postmaster-General might have such data and such information at his disposal as would enable him to deal fairly with all these multifarious interests. He did not plead for his own locality alone. The Postmaster - General ought to decide on general grounds. Members would know whether a man really came there to represent the interests of the nation as a whole, or just his own locality. By his own recommendation his district's maximum was reduced a considerable amount, and he was sure, he would be violently attacked for that reason, but that did not alter his opinion that the cost of living in a district and the volume of work in the Department should be the deciding factors in deciding the classification, of the officers in a town or district. Therefore he particularly wanted that inquired into, Yesterday he received a communication from one of the postal servants' organisations, and he understood

    1083
    other hon. Members had received a similar communication. It was as follows—
    "DEAR SIR,—A Supplementary Estimate will come on for discussion on Thursday. May I ask you to be in your place on that day. The Hobhouse Committee raised every existing scale of pay of postmen, but left the allocation of the pay to the Department. The result is that the Department instead of raising the wages of the men has actually reduced them in many places."
    That statement required some explanation. It appeared on the face of it as if the Hobhouse Committee and the, Post Office between them had deliberately decreased the wages of some men working in the Department. That statement was entirely untrue. The Committee had declared that under no circumstances must their recommendation deprive any officer at present in the employment of the Post Office of a single advantage he possessed to-day, and reduce him either in status or wages or classification or in any way whatever; hence where this classification might reduce the maximum of a district those who had joined before the maximum was finally fixed would receive the maximum under which they joined; so that they had not reduced the wages of a single man in the Department. Therefore some explanation of that document was necessary, because he should object to doing anything that would reduce the wages of workpeople. He was rather apt to do the opposite if he could.
    *MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that, so far as he could, he had made it perfectly clear in his speech that no existing officer under any circumstances would be prejudiced in his maximum by the classification.
    MR. JOHN WARDsaid there was one other side of the subject which he would like the House to be acquainted with. Most hon. Members would agree that so far as the working conditions and the established workers in the Post Office were concerned the Hobhouse Committee had given thorough attention to them. But there were a considerable number of workers working indirectly for the Department in regard to whom the Committee by the terms of reference had no
    1084
    right of inquiry at all. For instance, the 22,000 sub-postmasters employed nearly 50,000 assistants. He hoped the House appreciated that. They had no information as to the wages or working conditions of these assistants. The principle of indirect employment was very bad, and it ought to be avoided on every possible occasion. He did not know what the Postmaster-General advised in reference to that subject, but he was sorry to say the right hon. Gentleman seemed inclined to extend the principle of indirect employment rather than otherwise. The hon. Member for West Bradford put a Question to-day in reference to private wires for Press service, and he was sorry to think that the Postmaster-General had suggested that newspaper proprietors might league themselves together for the purpose of monopolising wires on those lines, when they might have their own operators, which would, of course, naturally result in neither the House nor the Department having any control over those operators and in deciding either their rates of pay or the conditions of their work. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say in his Answer that the system had been in existence for a number of years in reference to a number of newspapers, and that that was his only excuse for extending it. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would thoroughly consider the subject and pause before he consented to anything which would extend the system of indirect labour in his Department, In conclusion, he did not think he would have consented to act as a member of the Committee if he had been an old Member and had understood the ropes; and he did not think he would take on another such job. However, he had served his apprenticeship on this occasion. The Committee had done the best they could under the circumstances, and though they might not have satisfied all the different grades of employees in the Department they had done their best to deal fairly as between all classes.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDcalled the attention of the Postmaster-General to complaints which had been made by members of the Post Office service in Ireland with reference

    1085
    to the proceedings of the Committee. He did not know whether the hon. Member for Stoke who gave such very valuable service to the Committee could throw any light on the matter; but it was alleged by the Post Office clerks in Ireland that they were prevented putting their case fully and fairly before the Committee. In the first place, he believed that the number of witnesses they desired to call was curtailed very much, and that they were unable to bring before the Committee the evidence of a certain class of witnesses which it would have been very desirable for the Committee to have heard. For instance, they were unable to bring forward any evidence on behalf of the travelling Post Office officials, and, therefore, a great deal in connection with their case was entirely untouched. Nobody was in a position to give the evidence necessary in that regard except some of those who were actually engaged in the travelling Post Office work. Another complaint was that the evidence which they had prepared and submitted was entirely interfered with—not by the Chairman of the Committee, whose absence from the House that day everybody regretted—but by the secretary or some other authority. He believed the representatives of the Irish Post Office officials sent in a carefully prepared copy of the evidence they had prepared.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think we can discuss on this Supplementary Estimate the action of the Committee in regard to evidence. That must come on on next year's Estimates. But the hon. Member will be in order in referring to any hardship which these people think they are suffering from by the actual recommendations made by the Postmaster-General.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND, with great respect to the Chairman's ruling, submitted that as they were now asked by the Postmaster-General to endorse and accept the findings of the Committee, he was entitled to show reason why at least some of the Post Office officials had expressed their disinclination to be satisfied with those findings
    1086
    The reason was that they were unable to place their case fully and fairly before the Committee. While fully recognising the sincere desire of every Member of the Committee to carry out the inquiry entrusted to them in an impartial manner, those officials were not satisfied that they were able to place their case fully and fairly before the Committee. He submitted to the Postmaster-General that that was an extremely unsatisfactory and undesirable state of affairs. He was not himself in a position to offer an opinion on the subject.
    MR. JOHN WARDsaid that as the chairman of the Committee was absent he would like to say that so far from interfering with any evidence, the utmost limit, within reason, was given for every kind of evidence to be submitted.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: That is discussing a matter which does not arise on this Supplementary Estimate.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he would not pursue that matter further. He could assure the hon. Member for Stoke that it was entirely without his knowledge that the evidence offered from Dublin was interfered with and was not tendered at the time. He submitted that it was extremely undesirable and disappointing in a matter of this kind to find that there was dissatisfaction with the Report and the recommendations of the Committee on the part of a large section of Post Office officials. The right hon. Gentleman would not deny that the Post Office servants in Ireland were to a great extent cut off from the governing body of the Post Office in London, and they were entitled to have as much consideration given to their views as any Post Office servants in this country. The fact remained that the object of the Committee was to remove the grievances of which Post Office servants complained, and that dissatisfication continued amongst a great number of the officials in Ireland; and he feared that so far as they were concerned the good results they hoped for from the labours of the Committee would not be found. He hoped, when the Chairman of the Committee returned to the House, to take the opportunity of

    1087
    placing before him privately the views of these Irish Post Office officials, and from what he knew of that hon. Gentleman he was sure that he would take the trouble to inquire into the statement he would lay before him, and in all probability would have some explanation to make which he, and those whom he represented, would consider satisfactory. On the general question the Postmaster-General was to be heartily congratulated upon the fact that he was identified with what was obviously a very sincere desire on the part of the authorities to better the position of the Post Office officials. The large amount which he asked the Committee to vote for the Post Office servants would be readily granted by hon. Members in all quarters of the House. Nobody denied that, for a long period in many ways the Post Office officials had not received the consideration to which their labours entitled them. Probably there was no branch of the public service more entitled to consideration than the Post Office servants; and it was always with a light and ready heart that he voted the money for the Post Office service. He hated voting money for the Army and Navy. But in spite of the extra Vote an enormous number of postal servants would receive no benefit whatever. That was an unsatisfactory thing. He agreed with the Postmaster-General that those officials who were affected by the change had some reason to be satisfied; but it was undoubtedly the fact that a very large number of perhaps the most deserving and most hard-working servants would not have their position improved at all, at least for a very longtime, according to the arrangements which had been placed by the Postmaster-General before the Committee. That was a very unfortunate thing. He believed that if the Postmaster-General had seen his way to recognise that all the servants in the Post Office and the Telegraph Office were entitled to some increase of their remuneration and had made a larger demand on the House he would not have had the slightest trouble in getting the Vote through. He was the more sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not take that view, because he knew perfectly well that, however much it might be desired, the proposals of the
    1088
    Government at the present time would not settle the question. He could only speak for Ireland in regard to the matter, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Post Office servants of Ireland had no liking or anxiety for continued agitation, as it might be called, in this matter. They were sincerely anxious to be placed on a footing which would be satisfactory and end the struggle once and for all. He was informed, however, by some of the associations representing the workers in Ireland, that these proposals would not satisfy them. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman had gone into the matter sufficiently largely. What he had done was good so far as it went, but it left a large number of the most deserving officials in the Post Office in Ireland and in this country, entirely unimproved in regard to their position. He asked the right hon. Gentleman before he finally—and, of course, the final settlement of this matter did not rest with the Committee or with the Hob-house Committee but with the Department—came to a decision to go very thoroughly into the matter and to endeavour to see whether it would not be possible to make a change which would be beneficially felt all round, and not one which would leave a large number of the least paid and the most worked of the officials still under the impression that they had a grievance. What was the position of the Post Office in Dublin? Up to the present time, he did not know that they had any record whatever of the volume of work which passed through the Post Office of the city of Dublin. A great deal would depend upon that for the workers, as far as he could make out under the regulations; and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to say what the exact position of the Post Office in the city of Dublin would be and the volume of work which passed through it.
    *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I will answer that at once by saying that Dublin is in the first class, and will have the maximum scale.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDwas very glad the right hon. Gentleman had made that statement, and he presumed he

    1089
    had made it based upon the volume of work which passed through the Dublin Post Office.
    *MR. SYDNEY BUXTONassented.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that, so far as he knew, that statement had never been made before. He could only say that while he was very glad that the Hobhouse Committee was appointed, and while he was rejoiced that the recommendations that they made were being carried out to improve the position of a hard-worked body of public servants, he hoped that the question would be dealt with, detail by detail, and in a manner which would remove all dissatisfaction. The right hon. Gentleman said it was impossible to satisfy the claims of any body of people when it came to a question of salary. He did not know that he was disposed to agree entirely with that, because he believed that the public servants of the country asked for nothing but a fair wage, and that their demands were not extravagant and might be satisfied by wise and moderate concessions. He appealed to the Postmaster-General, at any rate, not to be influenced by that section of public opinion which was manifested sometimes in this House, which seemed to think that public servants were not entitled to agitate for their rights or to express their opinions. He was aware, and every Member of this House must be aware, that a great deal of prejudice had been raised against Post Office officials because they had banded themselves together to demand their rights. They were in his judgment perfectly at liberty to do so, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not be influenced by any action they had taken in this matter.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have, I suppose, like every other Member of this House, received a communication from the Postal and Telegraph Servants Association complaining of the decision at which the Committee has arrived, and at the action which the Postmaster-General has taken; but I do Mot rise to press this complaint upon the right hon. Gentleman, because I am quite certain of this, that
    1090
    an individual Member of this House, without access to information which only the Postmaster-General has at his command, without the power to have the whole facts of the case before him and to see every side of the question, is quite unable to form an intelligent and a trustworthy judgment upon these questions, often of a very technical character, and always of a very detailed nature. I have much too great a sense of responsibility, having held office in the Post Office itself and in other Government Departments, to desire to render the right hon. Gentleman's task one whit more difficult than it inevitably is, or to take advantage of the freedom of opposition to press claims upon him which I myself in his position might be unwilling to grant. I am not, therefore, going to say anything which will embarrass the right hon. Gentleman, and certainly nothing which will alter the character of this debate, happily contrasting, as I think, with some previous discussions on similar subjects, for on this occasion there has been no disposition in any part of the House, as far as I have heard the discussion, and I have only been away for a few minutes, to try to turn any sort of Party or personal capital out of the debate, or to use—for that is what it comes to—the purse of the taxpayers to pay the private debts of a Member of Parliament. But I want for a few moments to call the attention of the Committee to the position in which we are placed. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not regard it as his duty to defend or criticise the action of the Committee upstairs; he considered that it was his duty merely to adopt their proposals. I must enter a caveat as to that view of a Minister's responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman may very fairly say that, having appointed this Committee, he considers it right to adopt their conclusions, but if he adopts their conclusions he is bound to defend them. He cannot thrust the Ministerial responsibility from himself to the Committee; from the moment that he adopts their findings they become his decisions; he must take the responsibility for them, and he must defend them. I do not imagine that really there is much difference between us on the subject. It is perhaps nothing

    1091
    more thin the use of an ambiguous phrase on the part of the right hon. Gentleman rather than any desire to disclaim his responsibility. But I enter a protest and say that what a Minister does whenever he accepts advice from other people he becomes responsible for. He becomes responsible for the action which he takes upon that advice, and he cannot divest himself of that responsibility in appointing this Committee and in bringing forward this Vote in order to carry out in full their recommendations. The right hon. Gentleman desired, as many of his predecessors desired before him, to settle this question—not finally, for, of course, wages must vary from time to time, but to provide an enduring settlement of the long - outstanding agitation and grievances, and, above all, to adopt in full the recommendations of a tribunal which would carry weight with all parties. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had always held that the State should be a model employer of labour. I think I agree with him, but the words "model employer of labour" are a little ambiguous. If it means better than anyone else in the country I should differ from him.
    *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I said good employers of labour.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I thought he said model, but if he means by good employers that the State should be in the front rank of employers of labour, I do not think there is a Member of this House who would challenge that decision; and although I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, that the more that is voted for the public service the more I am pleased, or that their demands are never unreasonable, or that every one who is a Civil servant ought to receive some benefit from the hands of the Government at the present time, I am at one, I believe, with every member of the Committee that the State should pay to those whom it employs what the best private employer would pay in similar circumstances. But we ought not to pay more. We certainly ought not to be in advance of everybody else, and we ought not to be behind the best that is done—in that sense we ought to be
    1092
    amongst the best. We ought not to pay, however, more than the best, because that is to tax all those who are not members of the Civil Service in order to give members of the Civil Service a privileged position; and although I agree that they should get as good a position as they can obtain in similar employment with private people, I do not desire that the public service should be made a special and privileged class and receive advantages at the hands of men much worse off than themselves more than they could hope to get from private employers. In saying these things, for which I almost apologise to the Committee, because I am repeating what are almost platitudes, I believe I am stating what are the rules which everyone in this House wishes to follow in matters of this kind. The real question is, how are we, as a House, to apply those rules? The right hon. Gentleman said that he hoped by the Vote which he put upon the Paper to-day and by the expansion of that Vote which will follow in subsequent years to close the agitation in the postal service; that we should have adopted the proposals of a tribunal by which all were bound and which everyone, taxpayer and workman alike, would recognise as being a decision that must command every respect as being that of a well-informed, impartial body, possessed of the full evidence of the facts of the case. After listening to the discussion to-day the right hon. Gentleman can no longer indulge that hope; indeed, he himself has shown that he has been disappointed in his opening speech, for he said that from almost every section of the Civil Service concerned he had had representations protesting against some part of the proposals which he has made. I cannot, Sir, under your ruling, and I regret that the Rules of the House impose upon you the necessity of that ruling, go into any suggestions for another tribunal, but I take this opportunity in a discussion without Party feeling and without warmth to express my earnest conviction that we have not yet arrived at a satisfactory method of settling this question; that we have not yet discovered a tribunal which commands the respect of all concerned, taxpayers and employees alike, because we have not yet discovered

    1093
    a tribunal which public opinion regards as either competent or impartial. I wish to add my tribute to what has been said as to the labours of the Committee. Although I disapproved of the whole proceeding I think you could not have had a Committee, which would have devoted itself more to this matter or taken more pains to arrive at a proper solution. I cannot myself follow all their recommendations for and against, nor do I think if they had sat for another fifteen days they could have come to any other conclusion. I do not think you could have got a Committee to do the work better, but I noted that the hon. Member for Stoke who sat upon that Committee and who with his colleagues gave endless time to this matter, said that if he had had more experience of this House he would not have joined the Committee, and he did not think we should ever see him on such a Committee again. I venture to call the attention of the Committee to that statement of an hon. Member not unfriendly to the Civil servants and not unwilling to give his services to this House. I commend the judgment on a Committee of this kind to the Committee. I cannot discuss the details of the Committee, but I hope to take the earliest opportunity possible of raising this question and of making a suggestion which I hope the Government will consider, not as regards the Post Office only, but also other branches of the Civil Service. I will make that suggestion in a non-Party spirit and I will beg the House and the Government to consider it in the same way for we could do no greater service to the Civil servants of the country or to this House than to remove the question of the payment of Civil servants from the arena of Party strife.—
    *SIR FRANCIS EDWARDSsaid that if the Postmaster-General could find an impartial tribunal to deal with the question of wages and the conditions of employment of the Post Office officials or any Government officials he would render to the State a service the value of which could hardly be estimated. The great difficulty in this matter had been to find a tribunal that would satisfy all concerned and do justice to the public. He had heard the proposal
    1094
    of the right hon. Gentleman opposite with great interest, because such a tribunal would only be too satisfactory to this House. He himself was one of those who sat on this Committee in company with the hon. Member for Hoxton, and when that hon. Gentleman was speaking it would have puzzled anybody to have known from the remarks he made that he had been a member of the Committee. The hon. Gentleman referred to the difference in the pay of the employees in the Thread-needle Street and the Lombard Street Offices. That difference and its cause were well known to the Committee. The officials employed in the Lombard Street Office were what were known as counter clerks, and came in a different category to those employed at Thread-needle Street. They came from the Central Telegraph Office which was the largest of the kind in the whole world, and where the clerks served under different conditions. The staff in that office was being reduced, and the opportunities of promotion lessened; but the advantages they were losing were being made up by means of this extra pay. The ground covered by the Committee was very varied and the Committee claimed that they acted fully up to the terms of their reference. They had made a pains-taking effort to do substantial justice to all concerned. The Postmaster-General had made so clear a statement as to what had been the result of the recommendations that there was very little in the matter of detail with which he need trouble the House. The Committee had improved the conditions of the service all through. Their recommendations gave a distinct advance in pay to all the officials in the Post Office. He did not say that they were great advances individually in any instances, but it had to be remembered that the Committee of 1906 did not stand alone in dealing with the pay of the Post Office officials and servants. That question was dealt with by Mr. Fawcett in 1881, by Mr. Raikes in 1891, by the Tweedmouth Commission in 1897, and by Lord Stanley in 1905. All those revisions taken together had given an increase of pay amounting to £1,500,000. He knew

    1095
    they had been blamed for what they had done, for he saw the official publications of the staff, but he was glad to see that one called the Postmaster had in its November issue done them some justice. The scale so far as they were considering it, and he believed the Committee was unanimous on this point, was as a whole satisfactory so far as the maximum was concerned. Complaints had been made that there had been no advance in the maximum scale for seventeen years, and that during that period the "work had increased and prices had risen. But although it was quite true the work had increased in individual offices he did not know that the work of each individual had increased. As to the rise in prices, he did not think that people in employment outside Government offices had been able to use the rise in prices as a lever to obtain higher wages. Nor did the Board of Trade Returns for 1905 justify the argument of the rise in prices. The hon. Member for Stoke had referred to this matter, and he was glad the hon. Member had brought the matter forward because the bases of the Committee's recommendations were the actual volume of work and the cost of living. After all, rent was not the largest item. Food was the largest and that had not increased very largely in price. But the scale was not considered satisfactory so far as the minimum was concerned, and the Committee were greatly indebted to the hon. Members for Stockport and for Stoke for the assistance they gave in this matter. The minimum scale recommended by the Committee gave increases where they were most needed. They gave them in the first few years after entrance into the service. He thought the rise which the Committee had given in the minimum scale had given very real relief to those entering the service. Further matters had been referred to by the Postmaster-General. One of those, which the Postmaster-General referred to, and was known as the technical increment, was now increased to 3s. a week, and carried beyond the maximum. Then under the old scale a man who entered the service when he was over the age of twenty-one entered it at the pay of a man who entered
    1096
    at nineteen, namely, 20s. a week. But in future such a man would receive the pay of a mea of 21 years, namely, 26s. a week. It was his opinion that the wages and conditions of service compared not unfavourably with those that obtained in outside employment. He knew that view was not held by the staff. They were disappointed, and had expressed their disappointment vigorously. He was sorry for their disappointment, but in dealing with so vast a concern as the Post Office, with thousands of employees, it was not unnatural that the decision come to should have left some amount of disappointment. The real trouble they had to face was that the Postal Department had grown so rapidly and extended so much as to create complications and inequalities which had all the appearance of grievances. If they were to deal de novo with the whole matter, they would aim at simplicity and regularity, but it was absolutely impossible now owing to the complexity and number of classes in the postal service. The Committee had two main considerations to bear in mind. On the one hand they had to give a fair and sympathetic hearing to the grievances the staff complained of. Some of the grievances showed proper ground for redress. But they had to bear in mind also that the Committee were responsible to the public, and that there was a difference between the State and a private employer. He quite agreed that they all desired that the public service should give to those employed in it the best conditions and advantages which could be obtained from a model employer. At the same time it was only right and proper to say that the State should not take advantage of what was practically a monopoly to pay wages and to establish conditions of labour which would be in any way unjust to the public at large, or to private employers. The Hobhouse Committee had had a very difficult task to perform, and might claim that on the whole it had given substantial advantages to the men, and redressed many grievances which were justly complained of.
    *SIR C. HILLwished as a member of the Committee to express

    1097
    the great satisfaction which he felt at the Postmaster-General's intention to carry out the recommendations which they had submitted. The terms of reference did not allow of their considering the whole reorganisation of the service. All they were called upon to do was to consider the position of Post Office servants as compared with those of other employees of large firms. Personally he thought the conditions of service of the employees of the Government were very largely in their favour, so largely that they carried a very strong preponderance of advantage in their behalf. The very fact that a body of servants could come before that House with their grievances differentiated their position from that of all other employees. He did not know what would happen if the employees of big firms were to say they were entitled to bring their grievances before the House of Commons. He supposed the employers would decline to listen to them. They would have only to refer to one head of their department, and on him would depend entirely whether they continued in his service or left it. But any employee of the Government could, by bringing his case before his Member, ensure its being brought before Parliament, and there were many questions of that kind which were certain to have full consideration from the House. That was a very strong argument in favour of the conditions of service under the Government which gave Post Office servants an advantage over many other branches of service. The great leniency which was always shown in Government Departments in dealing with any cases which required consideration was a very strong argument in favour of Post Office servants. He knew it had always been supposed, and many servants of the Post Office considered that they had grievances and were not able to bring their cases before their employers, and that if they could come face to face with them they would be better treated, and would be able to represent their case more favourably than they could at present. But he did not feel that that was so. It was very uncertain whether, when brought face to face with their employers, they would gain very
    1098
    much by it. The Committee had tried to be as impartial as possible, and as far as he could observe all its members had served without any personal bias, and with a wish to do the best they could for the body of servants. They had tried in fact to get up to the motto of one of the organs of the Post Office servants, to be "just without fear." He claimed on behalf of the Committee that they were so, and whatever faults might be found in their recommendations they had an honest wish to hold the scales level between the public and a very efficient and useful body of public servants. He thought they really did a very great deal for the service not only in the way of giving them their wages but in various other ways. What they had endeavoured to do was to remove all the smaller grievances—the pin-pricks of the service—as well as add substantially to the wages. They had actually improved the conditions with regard to their sick leave, night duty, and Bank Holidays. The question of medical attendance they had also settled in a way to give satisfaction to the Post Office employees. Men who under the old system could not claim the attendance of any doctor in the circle in which they worked, could now get a medical certificate from the doctor nearest their own homes. That was itself a very great boon. Then they had dwelt very largely upon questions of sanitary inspection, which was a great advantage to the health of the staff. They had insisted also upon rapidity of building work, and that when works were required which would give greater facilities to the staff they should be carried out more quickly. They had also dealt with the question of secret reports. That was a burning question on which Post Office servants felt they were not always fairly treated. They found there was really no grievance, and that the so - called secret reports were practically reports on the position of the men, which were absolutely necessary. In regard to wages they had substantially improved the position of the men. He hoped the Report would be carried through without any dissentient voice, and though it would add largely to

    1099
    future Estimates he was sure there were very few who would grudge the advantage which would come from the decisions of the Committee to a most deserving body of public servants.
    *MR. WARDLEsaid he supposed the Select Committee on the postal service was on its trial. It was true there was still some dissatisfaction with the Report expressed throughout the various branches of the service. He had listened with some degree of curiosity to the right hon. Gentleman who had himself been Postmaster-General, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer as to what he had to say. It was true no Committee of that House, probably no committee appointed outside the House, could entirely satisfy any body either of public servants or workmen of any description. He did not think that was a matter of regret entirely. But when the right hon. Gentleman laid his proposals before the House with regard to civil servants they on that side would scrutinise them with a friendly but also a critical eye. The difficulty with regard to all branches of the Civil Service was that there was no entirely similar employment outside and if they were going to erect a standard of wages and conditions in the Civil Service similar to those outside, they would find themselves in a difficulty at once. The hon. Member for Clare had made certain charges against the Committee with regard to not accepting evidence.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. I ruled that out of order.
    *MR. WARDLEsaid that so far as the conditions of the men who worked on the travelling Post Office between Ireland and England were concerned the chairman of the Committee himself travelled with the Post Office in order to see the actual working. He accepted without any reservation the attitude of the Postmaster-General to this Report. The Report was the result of a large amount of careful consideration by a Committee composed of all sections of the House. Each Party was represented on it, and although they had arrived at a decision mainly by consent, and although some of those decisions
    1100
    were not entirely approved of by the whole of the members of the Committee, yet on the whole they might say it was the established opinion of the Committee. There were certain conditions inherent in the Civil Service which were quite different from outside employment. There were prohibitions as well as privileges, and the question of the privileges must be set against the prohibitions. Permanent employment also carried with it these prohibitions. Civil rights had been denied to Civil servants because of their employment. It had been felt in the past to be right to deny that privilege. In his opinion such denial ought not any longer to obtain. The political pressure which these various associations—
    *THE CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to stop the hon. Member, but here again he is discussing a wide question of policy which does not arise on the Supplementary Estimates.
    *MR. WARDLEsaid there were certain disciplinary measures which arose out of permanent employment such as punishment, fines, deferment of increment, and deferment of promotion, with all of which the Committee had had to deal. It was their object in dealing with this to see that the staff which was in a permanent position had proper opportunities of bringing its grievances to the Department. With regard to the question of wages, which after all was the main question which arose on the Report, they had sought to improve the position of the men below the age of twenty-five. It was that which induced them to fix the age pay in the case of the indoor staff at twenty-one and that of the outdoor staff at twenty-two. This improved the position of every class in the service. The question whether they had given every individual person some advantage or other was of course another matter altogether, but this particular provision improved the position of every class throughout the service, and gave the improvement at the time it was most needed, when the men needed to save with the object of getting married. They had also improved the maximum rates in the case of postmen, of the female staff and the engineering staff generally. It was intended that this should

    1101
    reach practically every member of these classes. Their intention was that almost all the postmen and the female and engineering staffs should practically get a rise on their maximum. It might not have been a big rise, but it was intended that they should all get it. He was glad that, taking it on the whole, the Report had been received by the Postmaster-General and the Department with satisfaction. The right hon. Gentleman had accepted and decided to work to the Report, and although there were some questions of interpretation on which he should differ, he welcomed the decision. The question of the classification of towns was the most important part of the Report that was left, and if there was any great amount of dissatisfaction after the Report was put in force it would be because of this re-classification. The Committee had drawn up certain scales of pay which were intended to improve the position of postmen throughout the United Kingdom, and they had swept away the ridiculous anomaly that Ireland was to be paid at lower rates than the rest of the United Kingdom. If this classification was not satisfactory there would be a great amount of discontent. The Postmaster-General had just issued a circular which had got to the staff in various parts of the country. He regretted in one way that it was not issued even earlier. It had already had the effect of bringing telegrams to many Members of the House, and messages pointing out the particular district which was going to be adversely affected by this new classification. The real reason for this difference had been explained largely by the Postmaster-General, but there were one or two things which he had omitted. Previous to the Report there were seven classes of sorting clerks and telegraphists in the country, and there were seven classes of postmen, but these classes did not synchronise. They were not uniform, and the object of the Committee was to bring a uniform set of classes and reduce them from seven to five. The new classification indicated by the Postmaster-General in the circular had had, so far as he could see, the extraordinary effect of entirely subverting the intentions of the Committee. It had increased or was increasing in many places the maximum of the sorting clerks
    1102
    and telegraphists, and it was reducing the maximum of the postmen in those places. It had been said that it would not affect the present individuals who were working in these particular places. He agreed that it would not, but no one liked to see the status of his office reduced unless there was sufficient ground for its being done. The recommendation of the Committee was that the volume of work plus the cost of living should be the basis upon which these places should be classified. Personally, he had protested against this method being adopted, but he was overruled; but he could see the difficulties that were going to arise then, and they were now having experience of what those difficulties were. The volume of work had been adopted as the criterion of indoor work, but it was no criterion for outdoor work at all. The question of how many units of work passed through the office did not settle how much work the postman did. It might be said that the original classification was better, and he agreed that it would have been better not to have interfered than to make a mess of it. He found that out of seventeen units of work in the Post Office classification there were only three that had any reference whatever to outside work at all. But the difficulty was greater than that. If they took the volume of work and the cost of living, how were they going to get a common denominator? What emphasis were they going to put upon the cost of living and what upon the work? He agreed that it would have been very much better indeed for the Postmaster-General to hold his hand for some time with regard to this new classification. The anomalies which were being produced already were very great. A new kind of criteria must be established before any satisfactory results could be arrived at. What were the anomalies? Let them take Woolwich, which was on the borders of London. It was actually being reduced for the future, and new entrants for postmen were only to go up to 27s. a week. They went up to 30s. before. Over the border in Blackheath they went up to 33s. Such an anomaly as that produced by this result surely condemned the method as it had been put in force at present. There were many other anomalies. He found that at

    1103
    Skipton the probability was that the sorting clerks and telegraphists would go up 8s. and the postmen come down 2s. on the maximum. The remedy in the Woolwich case was comparatively easy. Woolwich was part of London and ought to be paid on the London scale. The defect of the new system was that it did not give postmen the advance intended. It reduced the maximum of future entrants and mortgaged the future to pay for the present. They found from the Postmaster-General's circular that London postmen were to receive an estimated immediate advance during the present year of £46,500 a year. That was very good, but the ultimate advance was only to be £28,700, so that there was actually to be a saving on the postmens' wages, and the future was to pay for the present. It might be said that this did not affect the present staff. He thought it was better that the matter should be settled so far as they could settle it once and for all at the present time. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would pay particular attention to the matter of reclassification, because if he did not he himself could foresee a future agitation, greater than the past had ever known. It had been said that nobody would suffer. There was a sense in which some of them would suffer. The idea of the Committee was that all the scales of the postmen should be advanced a shilling a week at their maximum. Those who did not get that shilling by comparison with those who did would suffer. It would be said that they anticipated that the modifications of the recommendations of the Committee would be considerable. He agreed, but they did not anticipate and they never intended that the maximum wages of the postmen in these particular towns should be reduced. When the Committee framed the scales they did it with the idea that postmen with 26s. maximum should get 27s. They expected that in a few odd cases possibly that might not be done, but they never anticipated the wholesale reductions of the maxima which apparently were to be effected under the reclassification. He wanted to make this particular point clear, because he was sure that the results of this Report would have no effect in satisfying the postal service throughout
    1104
    the country if these reductions were carried out. This was the most important question which had been raised on the Estimates that day. He was very pleased that the right hon. Gentleman had recognised the trade union. There were many things in the Report not yet clear, and they would have to be settled between the right hon. Gentleman and the representatives of the staff. He trusted that those representatives would take full advantage of their opportunities of settling matters in that direction. There were only two other points to which he desired to refer. The Committee had been blamed because it did not undertake the immense task of recommending the reorganisation of the Post Office on certain lines. He had read in the newspapers that such reorganisation was to be a plank in the programme in the future. He did not think it was within the terms of reference that the Committee should undertake such a task. The reorganisation of the Department would involve considerable work, and he was glad that the Committee of which he was a member had not to undertake it. He thought the most important reform with regard to the Post Office which could be adopted would be not only to cut the ties which bound it to the Office of Works but also the ties which bound it to the Treasury. The Post Office ought to be a business department run on business lines, having its own personnel and paying its own staff, and then if it made any profit let it be handed over to the Treasury. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would seriously consider the question of the reclassification and keep it over as long as he could until all the factors in the problem had been carefully thought oat, for he did not think they had yet been considered sufficiently.
    *MR. McCRAEcongratulated the Postmaster-General in this age of economy on the success he had achieved in laying the scheme before the Committee. It was a scheme which on this Estimate, meant an increased expenditure of £250,000, next year it would be £500,000, and ultimately £750,000. He thought that was a tribute to the Committee, and the reasonable recommendations they had made. He wished to get

    1105
    an explanation from the Postmaster-General on a particular point. He could not understand the principle on which the allocation with regard to the maximum salary of telegraphists had been fixed. The right hon. Gentleman had said that afternoon that he had taken into account the cost of living and the volume of work. The telegraphists at the Central Office got an increase of 3s. a week. There was a readjustment of the maxima of telegraphists in every class with one exception, and that exception included the class which found its location in Edinburgh. Therefore, he spoke with some knowledge of the grievances which were felt in certain parts of England and Scotland, but more particularly in Edinburgh, having regard to the cost of living. This class of civil servant had had no increase in maximum wage since 1890, and the cost of living had considerably increased since then. He would specially bring to the notice of the Postmaster-General the fact that according to the Board of Trade Report the cost of living in London was only 2 per cent. higher than the cost of living in Edinburgh. Wages in this class in Edinburgh as compared with London were lower to the extent of £24 a year, being a difference of 16 per cent. He was sure that the work performed in each office was the same. Having regard to these percentages as to the cost of living, he could not understand how the volume of work could make this difference in their maximum salary. He hoped that this was one of the questions which the right hon. Gentleman would leave over, and that while wishing to conform to the recommendations of the Committee, he would leave it open to himself to consider what appeared to him to be a necessary revision. He hoped, at least, that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give an explanation as to how this discrepancy had arisen.
    MR. PIKE PEASEunderstood from the Report of the Committee that in almost every case the maximum wage had been increased and the conditions improved. But there were some places where both the maximum and minimum had been reduced. In his own constituency there was a great
    1106
    deal of disappointment, and not without cause, because when comparisons were made with places such as Manchester and York it was clearly shown that in dear-living places such as he represented the maximum should be increased. He had received a letter from the postal employees at Darlington emphatically protesting against the findings of the Committee. Everybody on the Opposition side always appreciated the courtesy of the Postmaster-General, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would look into the matter and see if something could not be done. He was sure everybody appreciated the great services rendered by the Committee, and felt that they had not received adequate thanks for their arduous labours.
    *MR. WOODsupported the appeal of his hon. friends the Member for Stockport, the Member for East Edinburgh and others, namely, that the Postmaster-General would take into very careful consideration the question of the classification of towns. He believed this question affected a great many large towns, in both England and Scotland, and, in particular, it affected the town which he had the honour to represent. He understood that it was intended to increase the maximum of telegraphists in London by 3s. per week, making it 65s. The maximum of the telegraphists in Glasgow who were doing similar work was to be left at the figure at which it had stood for eighteen years, namely, 56s. per week. There was, therefore, a difference of 16 per cent. On the principle laid down by the Committee, the salary should depend on the amount of work and the cost of living. He agreed with the hon. Member for Stockport that the first criterion was open to criticism. No doubt there was some justice in applying the criterion as to the cost of living. The question of work did not arise in this case. The work to be done in Glasgow was precisely the same as in London. He found from the Board of Trade Return that in regard to the principal commodities there was very little difference between prices in London and in Glasgow. There was a difference in the matter of house rent in favour of Glasgow. But according to the Board of Trade Return the combined figure showed a

    1107
    difference of only 6 per cent. in favour of Glasgow as compared with London. That certainly did not warrant a difference of 16 per cent. in wages. They all recognised the Postmaster-General's desire to bring about equality in this matter, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would respond to the appeal which had been made by so many Members that he should reconsider the question of the classification of the different towns.
    *MR. SUMMERBELLsaid he had listened to the debate with mixed feelings. If anybody imagined that all the Post Office employees of the country would rejoice at the findings of the Committee, he was mistaken. The hon. Member for Stoke had said that if the classification was not satisfactory there would be trouble and he desired also to say a few words on that point. The Postmaster-General had stated that the Government ought to be a good employer, and he wanted to show that if the recommendations of the Committee as to classification were carried out the Government was going to be far from a good employer. In Sunderland the minimum wage was going to be reduced from 19s. a week to 17s., and the maximum from 28s. to 25s. per week. They had been told that this was to be brought about by taking the amount of work performed and the cost of living in particular towns. He had gone very carefully into the Board of Trade Report on the cost of living, and he could not find any vestige of justification for the extreme treatment meted out to the Post Office servants in the town of Sunderland. According to the Board of Trade Return in this town, which was noted for what was known as its cottage properties, they were told that a one-roomed tenement house could be got for from 1s. 6d. to 2s.; a two-roomed house from 2s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. per week; a three-roomed house for from 3s. 6d. to 5s.; and a four-roomed house from 5s. to 7s.; and a five-roomed house for 8s. per week. Yet in the same Board of Trade Report on which the Return as to house rents was based it was stated that in the poorest area of the town, where the corporation had built working-class tenements, they had to pay for a two-roomed house from
    1108
    3s. 9d. to 4s.; for a three-roomed house from 4s. 9d. to 5s. On the figures first quoted the Postal Department based their calculation of cost of living. The dwellings which the Corporation of Sunderland had built were let at a loss every year, and if they had desired to obtain a revenue from the property the rents would have been considerably higher than at the present time. He had had a letter that day from Sunderland, which stated that thirteen Post Office servants paid rents from 5s. 3d. to 6s. 10½d. for a three-roomed house, and fourteen paid from 6s. 4½d. to 9s. 3d. for a four roomed house, and two-roomed houses were rented at 4s. 6d. to 5s. 3d. by postmen. Therefore under the head of rents, the Report of the Board of Trade was misleading and ought not to be put forward as a justification for reducing the classification of the Post Office employees in Sunderland. He would like to know from whom the reporter to the Board of Trade got his information? Had he ever taken the trouble to look at the houses? As to cost of living in Sunderland, it was stated by the Board of Trade Report that it was on the whole a little lower than in London—94 per cent. as against 100 per cent. But what was the difference in wages to be? In Sunderland a minimum of 17s. and a maximum of 25s. per week as against about 31s. rising to 35s. in London. In other words, the cost of living in Sunderland was only, on their own showing, 6 per. cent, lower than in London, while the wages to be paid in London were much above those to be paid in Sunderland. Then it was stated that if coal was excluded the cost of living in Sunderland was equal to the cost of living of Post Office employees in London, yet, as he had said, the wages of the latter were much ahead of Sunderland. He insisted that there was no justification whatever for the Postmaster General taking the extreme step he had done in regard to classification in Sunderland. His argument was that if the Committee were so far wrong in regard to their findings in the case of Sunderland, they were similarly wrong in regard to other parts of the country. At any rate, he could see no reason why the Committee should arrive at the conclusion that living in a town twelve miles distant from Sunderland should cost 5s. per week

    1109
    more for the same class of employees. To say that living was higher in York, Derby, Norwich, Carlisle, and Bath than in Sunderland was absurd in the extreme. As to the payment on the unit system, he would take Devonport, which "was an Army and Navy town, where the money orders dealt with must be very large. A money order counted there as ten units as against one for a letter. There were only periodic states of pressure and tie work was dealt with by a staff working overtime. It was not fair to include such work for the purposes of comparison with such a town as Sunderland, and the same applied to any garrison town or naval station, which, apart from those circumstances, might be important, and the work was more regular. He was not going to advise the employees in Sunderland to accept for a single moment the findings of the Committee under any possible consideration. Those findings were absolutely incorrect, and they ought not to take such a large sum of money per week from the men of Sunderland. More equal wages ought to be paid. Talk of paying a Post Office employee from 17s. to 25s. a week; why, an ordinary labourer was paid 6d. per hour in Sunderland, or 25s. a week, without any responsibility whatever! In that town the tram conductors were paid 28s. 3d. per week, and yet it was held that the Post Office was an ideal service! He appealed to the Postmaster-General that before finally adopting this classification system he should consider the matter again very seriously. If the right hon. Gentleman analysed the figures on which the Report was based he would find that there was no justification for taking the extreme step he had done as to Sunderland.
    *MR. SEAVERNSsaid he did not propose to enter into the vexed question of classification, nor to pass any criticism on the Postmaster-General, who had rightly described his task in interpreting the Report of the Committee as a most difficult and delicate one. The right hon. Gentleman was on reasonably safe ground when he pointed out that the Committee had been set up after a long continued and most vociferous demand on the part of the Post Office employees of the country.
    1110
    He, however, would press on the right hon. Gentleman that a Committee dealing with an enormous variety of topics and a great number of postal and telegraph employees, must in the nature of things bring in a Report in which there would be some inaccuracies, some anomalies, and some inconsistencies. He suggested to the right hon. Gentleman, and he trusted he would he supported by the House, that a liberal interpretation should be given to that Report, so that hon. Members might have a reasonable and fair prospect of arriving at a final settlement of this difficult matter. There were two points which he wished to press upon the right hon. Gentleman's attention. The first had reference to the technical equipment of telegraphists. As he understood it, the form of test now required was first class in magnetism, and second class in telegraphy. The Committee recommended a "searching test "as a proof of technical efficiency, but the test which was adopted was not one set up by them, but by a Secretarial Committee of the Post Office, and it required first class in magnetism, first class in telegraphy, and first class in telephony, which was a very high and critical test indeed. He was informed that the manipulation test was so severe that more than 90 per cent. of the telegraphists could not pass it.
    *MR. SYDNEY BUXTONdissented.
    *MR. SEAVERNSsaid he was glad his right hon. friend entertained that view, and, of course, he accepted what he said, but the information put before him by gentlemen who he thought were technical experts in the matter was that the test was one which could not be passed by an enormous majority of those who were now engaged in the telegraphic service. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to deal with that point either now or in his remarks later, because those for whom he was speaking were not desirous of being carping or critical, or unjust in the criticisms which they might pass upon the Report or the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of it. He might further remind the right hon. Gentleman, if he would allow him that a deputation waited upon him representing those interested, and they went away with a strong impression

    1111
    on their minds that the right hon. Gentleman so far as existing employees—telegraphists now in the employ of the Post Office—were concerned, would not require them to pass a more difficult test than that which was now imposed. He would further point out that while he entirely accepted the right hon. Gentleman's ground that he was bound to follow the recommendations of the Hobhouse Committee, this was not a question of accepting those recommendations, but purely one of how they should be interpreted, and the details of the way in which they should be carried out. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give them some assurance on that point. The second point he had to raise was that there had been an increase given in the maximum of the telegraphists in the Central Office, London, but that increase did not apply to the telegraphists in the district offices in London. He was dealing only with London because he was particularly interested in it. He should like to ask whether the telegraphists engaged in the district offices did not pass the same examinations, were not required to live up to precisely the same standard of efficiency; did they not have the same hours of work; were they not put under the same conditions of employment, and did they not have to bear the same cost of living. That was an anomaly which he ventured to say was one of the very gross and glaring anomalies of the Report. It did not surprise him, because it seemed to him that a Report dealing with so vast a subject must necessarily contain some anomalies and inconsistencies. He would appeal to his right hon. friend to give some reply also on this point, otherwise a great injustice would be done to a great body of deserving men.
    *MR. STAVELEY-HILLsaid he did not desire to detain the House for more than a few moments, but he wished to press the right hon. Gentleman for some answer to the representations which had been made to him with regard to the different towns in Great Britain with reference to telegraphists. They had heard that a rise of 3s. a week had been given to the telegraphists in the London Central Office, and the Select Committee,
    1112
    whose arduous labours had now finished, had made some recommendations with regard to the provinces; but they had neglected six very large towns, Edinburgh, Dublin, Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham, In those towns these unfortunate people still remained at the same maximum which was given to them in, and which had been in existence since, 1890. They had heard a good deal about the cost of living, and he was not disposed to enter into the question as to the difference between the cost of living in any one of these towns and London, but it was apparent that a telegraphist living in a town such as Birmingham, which had heavy rates, where there were few houses in the immediate vicinity of the Post Office, and when he had to go and live outside the town and make the travelling expenses to and from his work part of his daily living, was, in that respect, sometimes very much worse off than his brethren in London. The Select Committee stated that the reason why they gave this 3s. to London telegraphists was to compensate them for slowness in promotion as compared with other employees in the Post Office. But that applied equally well to the provinces as to London. At the present moment he believed there were 82, and in the current year there would be 100, telegraphists who had served for twenty years in the Post Office at Birmingham who would have to remain at 56s. instead of getting the rise which their more fortunate brethren in London would obtain. Might he ask the right hon. Gentleman to compare that with the rate of wage paid by the great cable companies, who had no monopoly, who had to pay a dividend to their shareholders and run the risk of competition? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give these points his consideration. The Postmaster-General should remember that the Committee recommended an increase of £52 a year to the junior engineer clerks, which was to take in and include the cost of living, and he asked why should the telegraphist be excluded. There was one other point he would refer to in regard to the classification. There was a town of considerable importance in the Midlands—Wolverhampton—which he did not

    1113
    find mentioned in the classification at all. There in a large and growing town these persons had to serve for 48s. a week, and were not so well off even as the first people he had mentioned in Birmingham. The right hon. Gentleman was not bound hand and foot by the Report of the Committee so that he could not consider the matter in detail, and he trusted that he would give the consideration which it deserved to the case of these deserving persons to whom he had referred.
    *MR. VIVIANsaid his speech would be a very brief one, but he desired to emphasise one point which had been put with regard to the classification. He would only put the case of the town which he represented, which was quite natural, because he knew it best. Birkenhead adjoins Liverpool and it was strange therefore that the postmen of Birkenhead by this classification should be reduced 3s. below Liverpool.
    *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Not existing postmen.
    *MR. VIVIANsaid he quite understood about the existing postmen, but at any rate the standard would be lowered by 3s.
    *MR. SYDNEY BUXTONdissented.
    *MR. VIVIANsaid there was no difference at all between the cost of living in Birkenhead and in Liverpool; indeed, he thought it could be proved that as far as certain things were concerned they could be obtained more cheaply in Liverpool. It seemed to him that the Committee had endeavoured to do an impossible thing, and that was to get a general rule which would fit all circumstances, with the result that they had got all these inequalities. He pressed the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter. This rule to solve all the difficulties was not one which worked equitably in different towns. It did not work equitably in Birkenhead, where they would have this strange condition of things. A postman working at Liverpool might live at Birkenhead and he would have the higher standard, but a postman working at Birkenhead might live at Liverpool and he would
    1114
    have the lower standard. The fact was that it was for most economic purposes one town. It was not two towns, and it was impossible for men working in the postal department of the two places in this way to meet each other day by day and to settle down to the inequality he referred to. He did not join in any threat on behalf of the postmen, because he believed that if their principles were pressed constitutionally and reasonably the right hon. Gentleman and those who worked with him would discover some method of getting over those exceptions to the general rule which the Committee had tried to work out under this scheme.
    *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I think I may as well deal with the points which have been already raised, although I shall be glad to answer further questions if they are asked. I will deal with the question of my hon. friend the Member for Brixton, who did not, I think, hear my opening remarks, because I dealt very fully with the subject he referred to from his point of view, namely, a technical allowance. The Committee recommended that there should be a searching test which should be a bona fide test of ability. This obviously means that the present examination, which is an easy one should be made much stiffer than it is. This is not a question upon which I can pronounce an opinion, having no technical knowledge of how far the examination test which we have proposed is fair and reasonable. My own view is that those telegraphists who are anxious and desire to show their ability and to put their back into their work should be able to pass the test. I am advised that of the present telegraphists a very considerable number can pass this test, but it is a matter of experiment both in regard to the examination and the nature of the test, and I shall keep it under my attention and if I find it is too high I shall certainly consider the question of lowering it.
    *MR. SEAVERNSinquired whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider that men of forty or fifty years who had been fifteen or twenty years in the service lost some of the elasticity of youth.
    *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman was not attending to what I was saying. The question is how many men will pass. My hon. friend said only 10 per cent. I have no desire to impose such a test as that. I will take the whole matter under my observation and see that it is properly carried out. But I desire to make this clear, that we accept the recommendation of the Committee that the test shall be a real test of the technical knowledge of telegraphy. Then my hon. friend asked as to the position of the country telegraphists as apart from those in the Central Telegraph Office. All I can say with regard to the various questions raised by my hon. friends behind me and opposite, in this regard, is that I must found myself on the recommendations of the Committee on this point. They had evidence before them on the question. They considered it very carefully and made definite recommendations. In regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Brixton this is the decision of the Committee, paragraph 227—
    "Taking into consideration the fact that the nature of the work and the hours of duty are less onerous for male counter clerks and telegraphists in the Metropolitan area than they are for telegraphists in the Central Telegraph Office your Committee are of opinion that the present maximum for counter clerks and telegraphists is adequate."
    That is definite, and we are acting on that recommendation. The same applies to the case of the large towns to which my attention has been drawn. The Committee took evidence on the point. At paragraph 247 they say—
    "Evidence was tendered to your Committee on behalf of the staff at the six largest offices, and also on behalf of the other offices" divided and "amalgamated" by the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association, by the United Kingdom Postal Clerks' Association, and by the Association of Irish Post Office Clerks."
    And with that before them, and the evidence given by the Central Telegraph Office, they came to this conclusion, that taking into consideration the facts of the conditions of service in the Central Telegraph Office the scale of payment for officers entering the class of established telegraphist at the Central Telegraph Office should be a scale which raises their maximum pay by 3s. a week. I take it that one of the chief reasons why
    1116
    they made that increase was that they proceeded to reduce the number of superior places in the Central Telegraph Office. An hon. Gentleman opposite said that the chances of promotion were no better in some of the large towns than they were in the Central Telegraph Office. It was on that, as I understand their Report, that the Committee largely based their proposals for increase, because in paragraph 420 they say—
    "The number of supervising posts already existing in connection with the Central Telegraph Office is excessive and they should in future be strictly limited in numbers and should consist only of specially efficient men selected by stringent tests for both supervising and other duties."
    So I take it, judging the Report as a whole, they came to the conclusion, after looking at the whole of the facts, to increase the pay in the Central Telegraph Office and not in the large towns. I am bound to accept the recommendation of the Committee on this point. This is one of the questions to which I referred in my opening remarks. Various classes come to me on one point and another, and if I go beyond the recommendations of the Committee in one matter I cannot refuse to reopen them in another, which would involve the reopening of the whole question. Under the circumstances I found myself on the facts and conclusions arrived at. To those conclusions I adhere.
    *MR. McCRAE: Am I to understand that the reason for this difference in the Central Telegraph Office was not the cost of living or the conditions of work, but because there is not now the chance of promotion in the Central Telegraph Office?
    *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The Committee came to the conclusion that the duties in the Central Telegraph Office were more onerous in their nature than those in the large towns, and at the same time they were reducing the chance of promotion, and for that reason, I take it, they gave this increase in the one case and not in the other. A great deal has been said about the reclassification. Reclassification is bound to lead to a considerable amount of change in the position of particular towns; and cases where it has resulted in reduction in certain towns

    1117
    have been brought to my attention in this House. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Stockport say he himself did not agree with the principle of reclassification; but the Committee in paragraphs 258 and 341 recommended it in most specific and definite terms, and their recommendations I have endeavoured to carry out. The reclassification recommended by the Committee, as I understand, is intended to be on the same basis for the different grades concerned. They take as the basis the units of work plus the cost of living in the various towns. I have no knowledge of the cost of living in any town except such information as is supplied by the Returns of the Board of Trade. But if in any particular place the Board of Trade can be persuaded that they have made a mistake, and they inform me that the cost of living there is either higher or lower than they had stated it to be, that is a case which I should be willing at once to take into consideration in dealing with the classification. My hon. friend the Member for Stoke suggested that when the classification was carried out there should be a revision from time to time. With that I agree. But whether it should be at stated periods or at various times is a matter for consideration. The whole thing is that classification should be determined by the volume of work and cost of living, and if it is shown at any time that the classification no longer corresponds to the facts, then it should be revised.
    MR. JOHN WARD: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would fix a time when reclassification should take place.
    *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press me as to a particular time now. I think the hon. Member said something about four years, but I see no reason for revision at any particular, definite' time, It might be better that it should be less than four years, or sporadic rather than systematic. I should like to consider that. So far as I am concerned I have accepted the definite proposals of the Committee in regard to classification. At present we have several different classifications for different purposes; and if we are going to simplify; those classifications obviously' the effect must
    1118
    be adverse as well as beneficial. You cannot have unification without some transference from one class to another. I wish to make that quite clear, because I think there has been some misunderstanding about what is taking place. But in this question of classification I can only take as regards the cost of living I the Board of Trade Returns, and as regards the application of these Returns to the volume of work, the proposals of the Committee. There were one or two questions raised by other hon. Members, but I do not think they are matters which I need discuss. There was one of great importance to me, but it is a somewhat delicate question. It is that of the relations between the Post Office and the Treasury, It is a very large question, and one some; what delicate for me to discuss. Naturally, anyone who has fetters upon him would like to have them struck off. That is as far as I can go with the question.
    Mr. CLAUDE HAY: What about the Office of Works?
    *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I think I indicated in my opening statement that that is a matter in which I should probably coincide with the views of the Committee.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYasked if he might remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Committee made very definite and specific recommendations with regard to the Office of Works. Did he propose to carry them out?
    *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I said they are recommendations to which we have not yet practically agreed, not having had an-opportunity of really considering them, but they are matters to which the various Departments will give consideration with a view to meeting the recommendations of the Select Committee as far as we can. There may be points, of course, on which hon. Members dissent from the recommendations, and possibly from the method with which I have applied them, but I think it is quite clear there is no Party feeling in the question. I think we all feel that in asking the Committee to vote such a large sum there should be practical unanimity.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNORsaid he wished to draw attention to some recommendations which appeared to have been overlooked. The Select Committee thought that casual labour and the number of auxiliary postmen ought to be restricted, and gradually reduced. The Postmaster-General had made a passing reference to the question, and said it was a very difficult problem. He could not see that there would be any difficulty about a problem of this kind; and, after all, what were Governments for but to solve difficult problems? If the Postmaster-General would only make up his mind to try and solve it, he had very little doubt that he would succeed in doing so. The Committee made an urgent recommendation that the Postmaster-General should pay particular attention to the position of auxiliary postmen in Ireland, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman had taken no notice of it.
    *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Oh yes, I have.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNORasked if the right hon. Gentleman had any intention of taking any notice of the recommendation. He did not think he had stated anything to that effect.
    *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Yes, I did. What I said was that my object was to reduce auxiliary labour as much as possible. I cannot reduce it altogether, because of the difficulty of arranging duties Otherwise, I am entirely in agreement with my hon. friend.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNORsaid he understood that the right hon. Gentleman would like to reduce it, but he asked him if he could not commence to make an effort to do so. He had not heard anyone during the debate make the slightest reference to this auxiliary postman, who appeared to be an outlaw in the service and regarded as a mere cypher. He wished to know if the Postmaster-General had any intention of carrying out the urgent recommendations of the Committee in this matter. In Ireland the position of the auxiliary postman was a very miserable one. He was paid about 4d. per hour, and had to walk from ten to fifteen miles a day in
    1120
    all weathers. Very few of them, he understood, reached 8s. per week. That was really a sweating system. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Government should be a model employer, but that was not a model system of employment which compelled a man to walk from ten to twenty miles a day for hardly 8s. per week. That was not how a good private employer would treat his servants. The Committee mentioned the inclusion of the postal servants in the Workmen's Compensation Act. He wanted to know whether that was the reason the sick pay of auxiliary postmen had been reduced by half. For some years ex-telegraph messengers had been used as auxiliaries. How was it that the Department, after using these telegraph messengers for years and turning them into auxiliary postmen, got rid of them? Was there any better way of swelling the ranks of the unemployed than such treatment? What was to become of these ex-telegraph boys who had been serving as auxiliary postmen? They had no trade or occupation that they could rely upon, and their chances of getting employment were very few. He thought their case ought to be looked into with a view to providing them with some employment in a Government Department. Then the stripe system was a very bad one. It was a clumsy device, and it seemed to him to create a false idea as to the amount of the maximum wages obtainable by postmen. The Postmaster-General's statement appeared to him to be quite illusory, and he thought if he looked into the matter he would find that the benefit of the slight alteration was intended for the men who were not yet in the service, and that those who had been in it for many years would get no benefit at all. On the contrary, some of the older postmen would be losers by the new arrangement. If the Postmaster-General was reasonable and logical he would make the stripe system retrospective. He thought it was not unreasonable to ask him to resort to the Tweedmouth system and establish retrospective conditions. If the right hon. gentleman was in sympathy with the auxiliary postmen he had a simple method of improving their lot. He could gradually provide an establishment for them. That was the point he wished to press upon him. He hoped he would not overlook the recommendations

    1121
    of the Commissioners with regard to these men.
    *MR. WILESsaid that everybody seemed to have appreciated the tremendous labours which the Hobhouse Committee had undertaken; but he thought he would be able to point out a few more inequalities in their Report. Considering the immense mass of workers and the intricacies and ramifications of the postal departments, this ought not to be very difficult. The hon. Member for Stockport had stated that the maximum of every class had been increased, or rather that nearly every class had been increased.
    *MR. WARDLEsaid he did not say that the maximum of every class had been increased. What he did say was that the conditions in regard to a certain part of their scale had been changed.
    *MR. WILESsaid that at any rate some hon. Members had stated distinctly that the maximum had been increased in nearly every class in the postal service. He desired some further consideration to be given to the postal porters—a class who were almost entirely employed in London and who came under Zone I. He might mention that nearly all the postal porters were old Army or Navy men. They had their minimum increased from 23s. to 25s. and he was pleased to notice that they had now a now avenue opened to them in something like eighty additional Lobby appointments. What he wished to point out was that their maximum had not been touched at all. In the evidence which the postal porters put forward before the Committee, perhaps they made rather a large claim, because they asked to be raised by two annual increments to 40s. per week. Nearly all the other classes had been increased as regards their maximum, many of them during the last twenty-five years, but it was a fact that the postal porters had received no increase in their maximum since the Departmental Committee of 1882. Up to that time their maximum was 27s. per week, and they were then raised to 30s. per week. Since the year 1882 many reasons could be advanced in favour of the claim which they put forward for a further rise in their wages. In the first place rents and rates in London and its suburbs had gone up, and the
    1122
    standard of living and the necessities of Londoners generally were now much greater than they were twenty-six years ago. It should not be overlooked that postal porters were obliged to live near their work. He believed that there were something like 750 of these men employed at Mount Pleasant, 350 were employed at the General Post Office, and the remaining 300 or 400 were scattered about the district offices. Not only had the cost of living and housing increased as affecting these men, but their responsibilities and their duties were much greater than they used to be. It was well known that they now had much more important work to do, and considerable changes in their duties and responsibilities had occurred during the last ten years. Originally their work as porters simply consisted of transferring the mails in bulk, but now they had to perform certain extra duties such as stamping and assisting the sorters, and they often were entrusted with large amounts of money and other valuable posted matter in the vans which were under their charge. He hoped the Postmaster-General would consider the claims of the postal porters, and see if it was not possible to put them in a better position with regard to their maximum pay. There was one other matter he would like to refer to, and that was the "trip allowance," which was dealt with on page 67 of the new circular which had been recently issued. The trip allowance for a postman travelling in a railway mail van for a long distance which necessitated his taking lodgings and sleeping out and taking his meals away from home, was 3s. for the shortest distance. There was another class of servants who travelled in the same van, and that class, for some reason or other, was allowed 4s. Now, it was almost impossible really to classify these men who had to travel in the mail van together, and he hoped the Postmaster-General would see the advisability of giving all the men who travelled together in the same mail van the same amount of trip allowance. He noticed that on page 47 of the Report the Committee had the case of postmen's Christmas boxes before them. He did not think anybody had up to the present mentioned this matter in the debate. Personally, he very much regretted that the Hobhouse Committee, who he expected would have reported unanimously against what he

    1123
    considered was a most objectionable practice, recommended that the system of Christmas boxes should be allowed to go on. He felt that Christmas boxes were not only a tax on the public, but, in his opinion, it was a practice which lowered the dignity of British Civil servants to have their salaries made up by "touting" round at a particular time of the year asking for gratuities. He had hoped that this practice, would have been altered, and he still had confidence that the Postmaster-General during his term of office would be able to deal with this important question, of doing away altogether with what he considered the most objectionable system of Christmas boxes, which were looked upon as part of wages. There was just one other point which he would like to touch upon, and it was the question of civil rights, which came before the Committee, and was dealt with on page 2 of the Report.
    *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I must point out to the hon. Member that the question of civil rights as affecting the postal service cannot be discussed under this Supplementary Vote.
    *MR. WILESsaid he had heard several hon. Members mention the question of civil rights, and in one case an hon. Member was called to order, and in the other case he was permitted to make a few remarks about the subject when the Chairman was presiding. He hoped that on the general Vote for the Post Office he would have an opportunity of discussing the question of civil rights. He would conclude his remarks by asking the Postmaster-General to be good enough to consider the matters he had put before him, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would see his way during the revision to adjust these inequalities.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he had had the advantage of listening to speeches made in the debate by the Postmaster-General, and Members could not express themselves too gratefully for the extreme courtesy with which he had dealt with all the observations which had been made on both sides of the House, as well as for the ability with which he had consistently discharged the duties of his office. Perhaps he might be allowed to express the sense of obligation the country was under to
    1124
    the Committee who had spent so much time and taken so much trouble in connection with the investigation of the very difficult subject with which they were now dealing. His hon. friend the Member for the Hoxton Division, had given an illustration of some of the absurdities which would result from the adoption of this Report, and one of them was this. There were some men working under the Post Office in the Lombard Street Post Office who were receiving a maximum of 62s. a week, whereas other men working under similar conditions, and doing the same work in Threadneedle Street Post Office were receiving a maximum of 3s. a week more, simply because they happened to be working on the Central Office staff. He was aware that this point had been called into question, but he understood that there was not the slightest doubt that anomalies like this had been created by adopting the Report. Equally, there was not the slightest doubt that whatever the Report had been, and whatever the Postmaster-General attempted to do in connection with his arrangements, a number of anomalies would inevitably be left. They could not make any alteration in any one particular case without creating a series of monopolies over the whole service, in regard to which some servants would be justly entitled to complain. Some of them complained because their wages were not increased, and others complained because somebody else had got an increase and they had not, and so this state of things went on. He thought there were two serious points to which strong exception ought to be taken which arose out of the Report and out of what the Postmaster-General proposed to do. In respect to these points, he proposed after the explanation which the Postmaster-General had given to more a reduction of the Vote by £100, because there was no other way of testing the feeling of the Committee. His first point was this. The Select Committee had limited the benefits of the new-arrangements to the new comers. His opinion was that the Committee intended that the benefits which they were advising should be conferred upon the existing staff, and he felt quite sure that that was what they had in their mind. They were not dealing with the question of the state of affairs that might arise

    1125
    twenty years hence, or the state of affairs that might be expected to arise in two or three years time. What he understood the Committee was appointed for was distinctly to deal with the existing staff, but what had happened? He thought the public would be very much surprised to hear that the existing staff were to be entirely cut out and passed over, and would have to finish the rest of their service under existing circumstances, and under grievances which they had so long complained of, whilst the new comers who entered the service were to be the happy people who would be benefited by the increases which were suggested in this Vote. He believed it was a fact that no one in the Postal Telegraph Service to-day, over the age of twenty-one years, on the present staff, would be improved in his position. If that was the case, it seemed to him that not only the Committee which had gone into these points and made recommendations upon them, and told them what they considered was the right thing to do, but the whole country would be grossly deceived with regard to this matter. His other point was that, in addition to London, there were fourteen large and important towns in England, including such places as Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, and other large towns, in which the telegraphists were to have no improvement whatever in, their rate of pay. This referred not merely to the present telegraphists but also to those who would be employed in the future. He had been listening for some hours to the speeches made by hon. Members, and they all appeared to him to confirm the statement that the intention of the Committee was to give a substantial and decent increase in wages to practically every grade in the service. There was, however, one grade which they had left out altogether, and that was the telegraphists in fourteen large towns in the United Kingdom. What made this anomaly more striking was that while they had ignored the telegraphists in those fourteen large towns, they had increased the maximum wages of the telegraphists at the Central Office, London. He did not suppose that there was throughout the country a single telegraph operator who would complain that the telegraphists in London at the Central Office were going to get 3s. a week more; but the
    1126
    anomaly was leaving the town scale of wages below the level of other places. The pay was 9s. a week lower for telegraphists in the provinces than at the Central Office, London. That difference was not accounted for by the difference in the cost of living, and it certainly was not-accounted for by the extra work that a man in London did as compared with similar work done in Manchester. He did not think there was any satisfactory reason for a difference of 9s. a week in the pay of telegraphists in London and Birmingham. He strongly held that the existing staff were quite as much entitled to benefit by the proposals they were discussing as posterity, and he hoped the scale would be revised. On these grounds whilst thanking the Postmaster-General for his courtesy, he begged to move the reduction of this vote by £100.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £259,900, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Watson Rutherford).
    MR. LONSDALEsaid he had no desire to detain the Committee for more than a moment or two, but he wished to draw directly the attention of the Postmaster-General to the case of the city of Armagh in reference to the new scheme of classification which had been adopted there. He understood that in the city of Armagh the Armagh Post Office had been placed in Class 5, which was the lowest rank existing in the United Kingdom. He ventured to think that that was not in accord with the dignity of the city which was, after all, the ecclesiastical metropolis of Ireland. Such a proposal on the part of the Post Office detracted very much from the importance of Armagh as a commercial city. He understood that this revising of the Armagh Post Office and reducing it to the lowest class had an important bearing upon the position and prospects upon the officials employed there.
    *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Is it a sub-office.
    *MR. LONSDALEsaid with all due respect he ventured to say that it was not a sub-office. The officials employed in the Armagh Post Office would not derive any benefit from the £500,000 which the new scale of remuneration was estimated

    1127
    to cost, and therefore he hoped that the Postmaster - General would take this matter into his consideration. He wished to point out that Armagh was one of the most important provincial offices in Ireland. Besides being engaged in the general postal work of the locality, it was also an Inland Revenue centre for the distribution of Inland Revenue stamps and the performance of work connected with the Court of Probate. He ventured to think that it was a great hardship that the men employed in this important office should be shut out from all participation in the benefits which were being conferred under the new scheme.
    *MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid it was impossible for him to keep the names of all Post Offices in his head, but he thought the hon. Member was mistaken in assuming that it was necessarily going to be placed under Class 5.
    MR. LONSDALEsaid he was in a position to state that the officials of the Armagh Post Office were under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman had definitely decided to place them under Class 5.
    *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I do not think that is so, and I am pretty clear in my mind about it. That office is, I think, in suspense as regards the postmen.
    MR. LONSDALEsaid that if the Armagh Post Office was in suspense it was all the more important that he should deal with the matter, and deal with the great importance of this particular office. As he had already stated it was the ecclesiastical metropolis of Ireland, a very important military centre, and also a most important commercial centre, and surely it would be a very great hardship to inflict upon this important and ancient city the indignity of being placed upon the very lowest rank in connection with the Post Office. He desired to point out that there were men employed in that office who had received no increase of wages for the last ten years. Complaints had been made to him that the staff employed there had been put off from all participation in the advantages offered by this new scheme. He gathered from the circular which had been issued by the Post Office to the Post Office Staff that, to use the Postmaster-General's
    1128
    own words, "He is not at present able to complete his inquiries into the case of the smaller class." He would like the right hon. Gentleman to inform the Committee whether a definite conclusion had been arrived at with regard to the position of the Armagh Post Office, and whether it was going to be the subject of reconsideration. He would be very glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that the matter had not yet been definitely settled.
    *MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he had already stated that that was so as far as he knew.
    MR. LONSDALEsaid that Armagh was an important commercial city of great historical interest, and it was the centre of a very important district which was really entitled to be placed in a higher position than it would occupy if placed under Class 5. This, to him, was a very important question, and he hoped the Postmaster General would favourably consider what he had said.
    *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I think I am correct in saying that Armagh is in suspense as regards the postmen. I have no doubt, as the hon. Member has stated, that Armagh is an important town, and I will see that the case is considered. I will look into the matter, and I think I may safely say that nothing as yet has been definitely decided.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his promise.
    MR. SEDDON: said he would like to know definitely what the attitude of the Post Office was in regard to the statement that the benefits were being confined to new comers. Some of them believed that the increases were only prospective, that the present staff were to be penalised because they were on the staff, and that those who were coming on in the future would get all the benefits. Would the Pos master-General give the Committee a definite statement that those already on the staff were not going to be excluded from the increases in wages If that point were cleared up, a good deal of opposition to the Report of the Committee would be removed. If, on the other hand, it was true that the present staff were to be

    1129
    penalised simply because they were on the staff, it was a gross injustice, and for that reason he would be obliged to support the Motion to reduce the Vote.
    MR. R. DUNCANsaid the Postmaster-General undoubtedly possessed a quality which entitled him to respect, that of modesty, but it was a quality which might easily be too conspicuous in the head of a great public department. In this and in other matters he paid too great deference to the decisions of others, instead of exercising his own power and judgment. Doubtless the Committee's Report was a well-digested one, but it was open to question in several respects, and was not above amendment. In these days when we were threatened with great extensions of State service, it was well to keep in mind one marked distinction between State service and private employment. The servant of the State as a rule aimed at a steady and permanent career, with a steady, if slow, improvement in his conditions of service. In private enterprise, on the other hand, employers and employed were in one boat, depending for prosperity on the encouragement of the public outside, through voluntary purchase of their pro ducts. Reductions in private enterprises were sometimes necessary, and willingly undertaken by all the workers, to bring back the tide of work and prosperity. The State worker was in a different position, and to submit him to a reduction in pay or status, was likely to take the heart out of him as a worker. For these reasons he thought some of the proposals unfortunate. He also desired to record his opinion that the increases recommended for the central staff should be extended to the great provincial towns, otherwise there would be a difference between them which justice did not warrant.
    MR. T. DAVIEScalled the attention of the Postmaster-General to the position of the factory employees who were engaged on piecework. He did not gather from the Report that the Committee definitely recommended that piecework should be done away with. There were workers of experience in the factory who sometimes did not earn more than eight shillings a
    1130
    week. Of course, they sometimes earned a good deal more, but he thought that no one in the Government service who had to live in London should be paid only eight shillings a week. It would not be allowed in any private service. There ought to be a minimum which pieceworkers should draw every week, whatever it might be. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would look into this particular matter. He desired also to call attention to the question of medical attendance, and to the grievance which was felt by men who lived more than throe miles away from the medical officer of the district to which they were attached. The Committee recommended that the medical area should be the area in which the men lived. Medical attendance was not required in the office during the day, because a man would do his best to pull through his work and get home. In the middle of the night, or next day, he might want medical attendance. He might then find that he was six or seven miles away from the medical officer. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider this matter with the view to some better arrangement being made.
    *MR. SYDNEY BUXTONappealed to the Committee to allow the discussion on this Vote to close. He would give his careful attention to the matters which had been brought to his notice by hon. Members.
    MR. T. L. CORBETTremarked that the Opposition would be neglecting their duty if they did not criticise the Vote. He pointed out that although the addition asked for to salaries and wages for Post Office establishments in England for the new year was £190,000 and for Scotland £47,000, only £22,000 was put down for Ireland. He had expected the Nationalists to draw attention to this matter, but they had not done so. Whenever there was any wrong to Ireland to be righted they were always absent.
    Mr. JOSEPH PEASErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes 200, Noes 47. (Division List No. 18.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Gill, A. H.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Cleland, J. W.

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

    Agnew, George William

    Clough, William

    Glendinning, R. C.

    Alden, Percy

    Clynes, J. R.

    Glover, Thomas

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Gooch, George Peabody

    Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

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

    Grant, Conic

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

    Cowan, W. H.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Cox, Harold

    Gulland, John W.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Crombie, John William

    Hall, Frederick

    Barker, John

    Crossley, William J.

    Halpin, J.

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Cullinan, J.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

    Barnard, E. B.

    Curran, Peter Francis

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Beale, W. P.

    Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Beauchamp, E.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Belloc, Hiliare Joseph Peter R.

    Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Bennett, E. N.

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

    Henry, Charles S.

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

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

    Dillon, John

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Black, Arthur W.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Boland, John

    Duckworth, James

    Hogan, Michael

    Bottomley, Horatio

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Brace, William

    Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

    Hudson, Walter

    Branch, James

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Hyde, Clarendon

    Bright, J. A.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Elibank, Master of

    Illingworth, Percy H.

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

    Erskine, David G

    Jackson, R. S.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Essex, R. W.

    Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Burke, E. Haviland.

    Evans, Sir Samuel T.

    Jenkins, J.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Fenwick, Charles

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

    Ferens, T. R.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Cameron, Robert

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Jowett, F. W.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

    Joyce, Michael

    Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Chance, Frederick William

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Kearley Hudson E.

    Kekewich, Sir George

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

    Kelley, George D.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Kettle, Thomas Michael

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Snowden, P.

    Kincaid-Smith, Captain

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    O'Grady, J.

    Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N)

    Steadman, W. C.

    Lambert, George

    O'Malley, William

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Lamont, Norman

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Partington, Oswald

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Perks, Robert William

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

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

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

    Summerbell, T.

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Pollard, Dr.

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

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

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen. E.)

    Lough, Thomas

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

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Lupton, Arnold

    Pullar, Sir Robert

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

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Radford, G. H.

    Thorne, William

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Torrance, Sir A. M.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Toulmin, George

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

    Verney, F. W.

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Reddy, M.

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Vivian, Henry

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Wadsworth, J.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Rees, J. D.

    Walker H. De R. (Leicester)

    M'Crae, George

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

    Walsh, Stephen

    M'Kean, John

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

    Walters, John Tudor

    M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Richardson, A.

    Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

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

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Ward, W. Dudley (South'mpton)

    M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

    Roberts, Charles' H. (Lincoln)

    Wardle, George J.

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Waring, Walter

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Marnham, F. J.

    Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

    Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmann'n

    Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Massie, J.

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Meagher, Michael

    Robinson, S.

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Menzies, Walter

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Montagu, E. S.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Mooney, J. J.

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Rose, Charles Day

    Wiles, Thomas

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Rowlands, J.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Muldoon, John

    Runciman, Walter

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Williamson, A.

    Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

    Murray, James

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Myer, Horatio

    Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

    Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

    Napier, T. B.

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

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

    Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

    Seddon, J.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Nicholls, George

    Seely, Colonel

    Wodehouse, Lord

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

    Shackleton, David James

    Wood T. M'Kinnon

    Nolan, Joseph

    Shaw, Charles Edw, (Stafford)

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

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

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Nuttall, Harry

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    NOES.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Balcarres, Lord

    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey.

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Wore.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

    Banner, John S. Harmood.

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

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

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Fell, Arthur

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Cross, Alexander

    Guinness, Walter Edward

    1050

    1051

    Haddock, George B.

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Magnus, Sir Philip

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

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Starkey, John R.

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh)

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

    Percy, Earl

    Thomson, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

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

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

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

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir. Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Forster.

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

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin S.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

    Gulland, John W.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Agnew, George William

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Hall, Frederick

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Allen Charles P. (Stroud)

    Halpin, J.

    Partington, Oswald

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Baker Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Harmsworth Cecil B. (Worc'r)

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

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Hart-Davis, T.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Pollard, Dr.

    Barker, John

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Barnard, E. B.

    Hayden, John Patrick

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

    Barnes, G. N.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

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

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Radford, G. H.

    Beale, W. P.

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Beauchamp, E.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

    Bell, Richard

    Higham, John Sharp

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Hodge, John

    Reddy, M.

    Bennett, E. N.

    Hogan, Michael

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Holt, Rehard Dinning

    Redmond, William Clare)

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Horridge, Thomas Gardner

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

    Branch, James

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Richardson, A.

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Hyde, Clarendon

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Brodie, H. C.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

    Jackson, R. S.

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

    Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradford

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Jones, William Carnarvonshire

    Robinson, S.

    Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

    Joyce, Michael

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Kettle, Thomas Michael

    Rose, Charles Day

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Sears, J. E.

    Cleland, J. W.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Clough, William

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Shackleton, David James

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

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

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Sheehan, Daniel, Daniel

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

    Lough, Thomas

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Gr'nst'd

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Cox, Harold

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

    Thompson, J. W. H (Somerset, E

    Cremer, Sir William Randal

    M'Callum, John M.

    Tillett, Louis John

    Crossley, William J.

    M'Crae, George

    Torrance, Sir. A. M.

    Cullinan, J.

    M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Toulmin, George

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

    M'Killop, W.

    Vivian, Henry

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

    Wadsworth, J.

    Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Maddison, Frederick

    Walsh, Stephen

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Massie, J.

    Walters, John Tudor

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Meagher, Michael

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

    Dillon, John

    Menzies, Walter

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

    Duckworth, James

    Montagu, E. S.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Duffy, William J.

    Mooney, J. J.

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Edwards Clement (Denbigh)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Erskine, David C.

    Muldoon, John

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Essex, R. W.

    Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

    Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Myer, Horatio

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

    Fenwick, Charles

    Nicholls, George

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Nolan, Joseph

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    Nuttall, Harry

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. J. A. Pease and Mr. Whitley.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

    Gooch, George Peabody

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    NOES.

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

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Forster, Henry William

    M'Arthur, Charles

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

    Gill, A. H.

    O'Grady, J.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Glover, Thomas

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Guinness, Walter Edward

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hills, J. W.

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Seddon, J.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hudson, Walter

    Summerbell, T.

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Jenkins, J.

    Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

    Craig, Capt. James (Down, F.).

    Jowett, F. W.

    Wiles, Thomas.

    Cross, Alexander

    Kelley, George D.

    Curran, Peter Francis

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Dalyrmple, Viscount

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. T. L. Corbett and Mr. Fell.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £259,900, be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 11; Noes, 195. (Division List No. 19.)

    AYES.

    Cleland, J. W.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Wiles, Thomas

    Cross, Alexander

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

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

    M'Arthur, Charles

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Watson Rutherford and Mr. Seddon.

    Hills, J. W.

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool. Walton

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

    NOES.

    Agnew, George William

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Gill, A. H.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Glover, Thomas

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Clough, William

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Gooch, George Peabody

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Grant, Corrie

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

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

    Guinness, Walter Edward

    Barker, John

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Gulland, John W.

    Barnard, E. B.

    Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

    Hall, Frederick

    Barnes, G. N.

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

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

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Beale, W. P.

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Beauchamp, E.

    Cox, Harold

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Bell, Richard

    Cremer, Sir William Randal

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Crossley, William J.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Bennett, E. N.

    Curran, Peter Francis

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Henry, Charles S.

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

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Bethell, T. R, (Essex, Maldon)

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Hodge, John

    Branch, James

    Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Horridge, Thomas Gardiner

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Duckworth, James

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Brodie, H. C.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

    Hudson, Walter

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

    Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

    Hyde, Clarendon

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Erskine, David C.

    Jackson, R. S.

    Bull, Sir William James

    Essex, R. W.

    Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Everett, R. Lacey.

    Jenkins, J.

    Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

    Fenwick, Charles

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Ferens, T. R.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Jowett, F. W.

    O'Grady, J.

    Snowden, P.

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Partington, Oswald

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Kelley, George D.

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

    Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Kincaid-Smith, Captain

    Pollard, Dr.

    Summerbell, T.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

    Taylor John W. (Durham)

    Laidlaw, Robert

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

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

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Radford, G. H.

    Torrance, Sir A. M.

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Toulmin, George

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Wadsworth, J.

    Lough, Thomas

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

    Walsh, Stephen

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

    Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

    Macdonald, J. M (Falkirk B'ghs

    Richardson, A.

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Watt, Henry A.

    M'Crae, George

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    White, Luke (York. E. R.)

    M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

    Whitehead, Rowland

    M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

    Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

    Wilson, Hon. G. G. Hull, W.)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

    Massie, J.

    Robinson, S.

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Menzies, Walter

    Roe, Sir Thomas

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

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Montagu, E. S.

    Rose, Charles Day

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Sears, J. E.

    Myer, Horatio

    Seaverns, J. H.

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

    Nicholls, George

    Shackleton, David James

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

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

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1907–8.

      CLASS III.
      2. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for the Expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary."
      MR. HAYDENsaid he objected to the Vote altogether, because he regarded the charge as entirely unnecessary, especially when a huge Vote had been already granted for the Royal Irish Constabulary. In order to understand the nature of the cost of the Royal Irish Constabulary, he would remind the Committee that the police of Ireland cost the taxpayer a million and a half of money, and that cost, as compared with the cost of the police in this country, was grossly excessive. In England the cost of the police was 2s. 4d. per head of the population; in Scotland it was 2s. 2d. per head; and in Ireland, 6s. 8d. per head. Under these circumstances, be thought that if any extra burden
      1136
      was to be thrown upon the police authorities of Ireland, there was provision enough of money and men to meet any emergency without applying for an additional grant from the Exchequer. This charge for extra police was said to be in connection with the disturbed districts in Ireland. He denied that there were any disturbed districts in Ireland, and he lived in and represented one which was so described. A few years ago, he thought it was in 1901, a Select Committee of this House, presided over by the hon. Member for Sheffield, reported that there was no criminal class in Ireland, and yet not only were the huge sums to which he had referred voted year by year for the police, but each year, if anything at all out of the ordinary occurred in the country, the Government applied for an additional Vote. He was particularly interested in this matter, because it involved not merely a charge upon the taxpayers, but also upon the ratepayers in several counties in Ireland. The county council of the county in which his constituency was situated had been asked for a contribution towards these charges of £1,699 for the half-year ended last September. He would

      1137
      draw the attention of the Attorney-General to the law on this matter. These extra police, as he understood, had been imported into certain counties in Ireland under a proclamation, and so far as he knew they could not be so imported without a proclamation. Certain counties were proclaimed early in the month of September under 6 & 7 William IV, and this proclamation so far as he understood did not refer to any date preceding that upon which it was issued; yet the demands in respect of the charges for the extra police had been made against the county council for six months prior to the date of the proclamation. For instance, in county Roscommon, the account began in the month of May and went on in June, July, and August; but during none of those months was the county under proclamation. A demand was made upon the county council quite recently for this huge sum of money, but they postponed the consideration of the matter until legal advice could be obtained upon it. He would ask the Attorney-General to look into this question before the "lose of the debate, and to justify if he could the charge prior to the date of the proclamation. This was not a matter which referred to one county only; it referred to many; the county of Galway had had a charge of £1,100 made against it, and county Clare one for £900. It was a very serious matter in this year of all others in regard to the western province, because the local authorities had actually had to undertake obligations in respect to the future and to help the people with seed to tide over a period of distress. This charge was in connection with the agrarian movement which was taking place in Ireland. A Royal Commission had been investigating that subject, and Bills had been promised. One was promised for last year, but the promise was not kept. One was promised for this year, and they hoped that the pledge would be kept. The real cause of what were called disturbances would be very quickly wiped away if this House would act according to its own pledges and put into proper operation the law which it passed in the year 1903. Then, the Legislature held out hopes to the people that the land would be properly sold and divided amongst them. That hope had been dissipated, and in consequence these so-called disturbances had
      1138
      taken place, and the ratepayers in the poorest parts of Ireland were called upon to meet this huge levy, while the taxpayers of both Great Britain and Ireland were obliged to support the land owners and graziers of the western province of Ireland. Even supposing that extra police were required in any portion of Ireland, he thought that out of the million and a half which was annually voted, sufficient money could be found to send a few police from one part of a county into another; but instead of that this House was compelled, whenever anything extra was required in the way of duty by the police in Ireland, to pay extra. Moreover, the most expensive method was resorted to of bringing the police from one county to another instead of bringing them from one portion of a county to another part of it. The police were brought from the farthest county in Ireland in order to heap up the charges. He made a statement in his own constituency and he now repeated it, that the reason for importing large forces of constabulary into certain counties in Ireland was to punish the people of those counties for their activity on the land question. It was a reminder to them of those punitive expeditions which they heard of against natives in Eastern countries. He thought also that when police were brought into a district, local opinion on the subject should be taken into consideration, but the only local opinion ever adopted or sought for was that of the local police authorities themselves—[An HON. MEMBER: And the landlords]—and, as his friend said, of the landlords. It was extraordinary how different places were treated owing to the different temperament of the police officer situated in them. To give an example, last summer he attended a meeting in his constituency, and there he found a force of a hundred police with three or four district inspectors of the county constabulary. The force had absolutely nothing to do. About three weeks later he was attending a meeting about one and a half miles away from that place, but it was in the county of Galway. All the police he found there were one district inspector and three constables, and, it must be remembered, that in this case the meeting was held almost opposite and within less than one hundred yards of the house of a man who certainly

      1139
      was not popular in the district, inasmuch as there was a strong feeling against him for having taken a farm which ought to have been divided up amongst the people. It was said that these meetings were intimidatory. Well, if ever there was a meeting which from that point of view might be called intimidatory it was one of this kind, held almost immediately outside the house of a man whom the people regarded as a land-grabber; and yet with this small force of police the man was not molested, he was not booed, and nothing whatever took place which required the attention of the police. The people when they assembled at these meetings did not desire to violate the law or to defy the police, but they were determined to put forward their views and to carry those views, when they were right and proper, into effect. He attributed the different treatment in those two places situated in one parish though in different counties, to the fact that there were different police officers in the two places, and this set him to examining into the character of the officer who was responsible in each case. He found that in the first case the officer responsible was a county inspector, who filled that position in the years 1901, 1902 and 1903, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover set out upon a slight career of coercion. He found that this county inspector had put the Coercion Act into operation in a manner to disgust even the removeables on the bench, who rarely refused to convict when asked to do so. He brought forward a case against the chairman' of the county council of Roscommon, Mr. John Fitzgibbon, the charge being that he was driving along a road on the wrong side. That was the offence for which a special Act of Parliament and a specially packed bench was introduced into Roscommon. So absurd was the case, and so absurd was the evidence brought forward—for Inspector McConnell himself was proved to have gone on the wrong side of the road, and not Mr. Fitzgibbon—that the two removables dismissed the case, and then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover removed Mr. McConnell to the depot. When the strong hand was wanted to keep down the people who were crying to this House to keep the pledges it had made, the Government found this mail and sent him to Roscommon. The
      1140
      result had been that police from all parts had been flooding the place for the last twelve months and the House was now asked to vote this large sum and the ratepayers of Ireland were called on to bear to a higher degree a burden already too heavy for them. The Government which found it difficult to get money to put into operation the laws of necessity and urgency passed by this House was ready at any moment to ask for huge sums for the upkeep of the police. He asked the Attorney-General to inform the House on what ground these demands had been made on various county councils of Ireland for the payment of, extra police prior to the date of the districts being proclaimed, and to say whether the executive or the county inspector of each county was responsible for the amount of police brought into the county; what steps were taken to ascertain the necessity for the extra police; and whether immediately the inspector said they were necessary they were drafted into the district. He would point out that in England the county councils were consulted in matters respecting the police, and that they controlled the police in their own districts. He would like to know whether the county councils of Ireland were consulted and whether their opinion was taken into account in the matter. As representation went with taxation he asserted that the county councils of Ireland ought to have a voice in these matters. They had shown their capacity for local government. He further asked whether anything that took place at public meetings in Ireland justified such large forces of police being present at those meetings. It was said that the police were there to prevent cattle-driving; but cattle-driving took place when the police were asleep or away enjoying themselves. The fact was that when the people of a district assembled in a legitimate manner for a legitimate object the police were drafted in to see if there was any fear of disturbance. But seeing that all the people were agreed as to the object for which they had assembled he failed to see on what ground anybody could believe a breach of the peace was possible. Yet in some cases there were at these meetings as many police as civilians, and the charge

      1141
      for those police was made on the taxpayers of the United Kingdom and Ireland and the ratepayers of the counties of Ireland. He protested against such a thing being allowed. So far as this Vote was concerned they were only at the commencement of the charge. The charge was for the half-year ending 7th September last. Since then four months had passed, during which time the police authorities seemed to have lost their heads and large police forces were stationed in many counties of Ireland. Those acquainted with Ireland agreed that these large forces of police were unnecessary; that in many cases they were a cause of irritation and provoked the people to do the very things they were assembled to prevent. He warned the Government that if this system of terrorism and blackmail were persisted in it would imperil the very existence of local government in Ireland. If these large demands continued to be made people would be prevented from taking part in local government, and the result would be to kill that local government in Ireland which had proved such a success for the last ten years. He hoped that would be avoided by the extra police being withdrawn and the people being allowed to meet to assert their demands so long as those demands were reasonable. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £4,000, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Hayden.)
      MR. JOHN REDMOND: I rise to support the Motion of my hon. friend. I desire to develop one aspect of the case put forward by him. I wish to point out that so far as these districts are concerned the supposed necessity of these large drafts of police is largely due to the grossly exaggerated accounts that have been given of the agitation and of the so-called disturbances, and by the creation of a state of panic by bogus outrages which are reported in this country and in Ireland. There is at this moment in England a gentleman from Galway, one of the so-called disturbed districts where the extra police are employed,
      1142
      who is delivering lectures endeavouring to create a belief in this country that the portion of the county from which he comes is in a state of outrage, crime, and disturbance. I refer to Mr. H. Persse, of Woodville, in the county of Galway. There are two matters connected with Mr. Persse that ought to stand "out very prominently. The first of these is that this is Lord Clanricarde's estate, the cause of untold trouble, disturbance, and anxiety to Governments of various Parties. I will prove conclusively in a moment that there is no real outrage, but at the same time there is no use blinking the fact that so long as the law passed in 1903 proves, as it has proved up to the present, incapable of dealing with the estate of Lord Clanricarde, you will have agitation and disturbance there. The second fact which ought to stand out prominently in connection with the case of Mr. Persse is that, according to his own statement, his troubles commenced during the secretaryship of the right hon. Member for Dover and continued all through the secretaryship of the right hon. Member for S. Dublin. Therefore, if his statement as to disturbance and boycotting in that part of Galway is true, it is absurd to seek to throw the blame on the present Chief Secretary. In trying to bring this country to the conviction that this expenditure is necessary, Mr. Persse has posed as a simple innocent farmer, anxious to carry out his avocation and prevented from doing so by the machinations of the United Irish League and the intimidation of the people. What is this gentleman's record? He served for some years in the Mounted Police in India. Why did he leave India, I wonder? It would be interesting if we could follow his career and arrive at the conclusion why he gave up the avocation of a policeman in India. After that he went to South Africa and became a mounted policeman there. Why did he sever his connection with the police in South Africa? Finally he found his way to Lord Clanricarde's estate, and now poses as an ordinary farmer who is prevented from following his avocation by the action of the people. When he went to Lord Clanricarde's estate he found a large grazing farm, named Woodville, let on the eleven

      1143
      months system to grazers for a very large number of years. If I am rightly informed three grazers who had this large farm in order to facilitate the carrying out of the policy of the late Tory Government and of this House in the Act of 1903, gave up their holdings so that these grass lands might be dealt with and divided up amongst the people in the settlement of the Clanricarde dispute. Then this ex-policeman stepped in and took a letting. It would be ridiculous to pretend that a man of that kind could be taken on the Clanricarde estate especially, without arousing the bitterest feelings of hostility. That is the way in which Mr. Persse came into possession of the farm. Trouble began immediately while the right hon. Member for Dover was Chief Secretary for Ireland, and he applied to Dublin Castle for police protection. He was refused, not by the present Government, but by the late Tory Government. Why was he refused? I ask the Attorney-General for Ireland to produce the documents connected with that application. I ask him to tell the House frankly what local reports were sent to Dublin Castle on the matter, and what were the reasons—because he has the records—why police protection was refused. This gentleman has written to-day a letter to the newspapers in which he denies that he went to Dublin Castle for police protection until after the alleged moonlighting attack. Here is what he says to-day—
      "To the best of my belief I was under police protection in March, 1905, and it is not improbable that after the assault on my house I did apply to the authorities in Dublin. The result of that application was not to increase the protection for which I asked. I cannot charge my memory with the official reply, whether It was a direct refusal or was to the effect that my case would receive consideration. The net result however was that no additional police protection was given."
      His complaint is that the protection he asked was refused. Here is what the Irish Times wrote in an interview with this gentleman at the time—
      "Mr. Persse went to the police authorities and demanded protection, but met, he says, with scant courtesy. He went to Dublin Castle, where he saw some of the higher officials "—
      I wonder if he saw the Member for South Dublin—
      "who in reply to his request promised to send down some police huts and charge the disturbed
      1144
      area with the cost. This promise, however, was broken. The huts were not sent, but Mr. Persse was allowed to provide for his own protection, and now he is at great inconvenience obliged to accommodate three policemen on his own premises. He is still boycotted, and for his personal protection has to carry a revolver."
      Therefore, it is clear that Mr. Persse, when he first went to Dublin Castle for additional police protection, was refused by the late Government. I should like to know whether this gentleman or the correspondent of the Irish Times, who professes to quote him, is telling the truth. Is it true that he went to Dublin Castle before this alleged outrage, and that he was refused, or is it true that he never went to Dublin Castle for protection until after the attack was made upon his house? A few days after this transaction—after he was told that if he wanted policemen he would have to put them up in his own house and pay for them—the whole of this country was startled by a most sensational announcement of a daring moonlighting attack upon this gentleman's house. It appeared in the daily papers in this country under sensational headlines: "Terror in Ireland," Dastardly Moonlighting Attack upon an Unoffending Farmer," "Shots fired," "Brave Conduct of an. English Lady." "We were horrified about this matter, and we asked some questions of the Government, but we were unable at first to get any information from them. They said they were making inquiries. Let me read an account of the outrage which appeared in that leading Tory newspaper, the Irish Times. The Irish Times said—
      "At about eight o'clock on Thursday night an attack was made on the residence of Mr. H. Persse at Woodville, county Galway, by a party of moonlighters. The windows of the front of the house were smashed in with stones, while a number of revolver shots were at the same time discharged. Although a great deal of alarm was caused to Mr. Persse and his family very little damage was done apart from the smashing of the windows. A lady in the house, however, had a very narrow escape. When the shots where fired Mr. Persse seized a revolver, pursued the attacking party, and returned their fire, discharging four shots. The moonlighters returned the fire, but Mr. Persse escaped injury. The affair coming, as it does, so soon after the Athenry and other outrages has left a very uneasy feeling among persons who have become obnoxious to the United Irish League in the district. The police are

      1145
      actively engaged in pursuing inquiries, but up to the time of wiring no arrests have been made."
      Let me say at once that every syllable of that letter from beginning to end has been proved to be untrue. Mr. Persse, having been charged with creating this bogus outrage, in his letter denies now in a half-hearted way the accusation against him, and he says that he never stated that shots were fired at his house. This was his wire—"Woodville House was attacked last night. I pursued and fired several shots." He says he was in no degree responsible for the account given in the Irish Times of the attack on his house in March, 1905, but from that date until his letter this morning he never denied the statement which appeared in the Irish Times that shots were fired at his house. We questioned the Government over and over again upon this matter, and we could get no reply from them except that they were making inquiries. Now, let me read the real account of this transaction. There is the report made by the Special Commissioner of the Freeman's Journal, sent down by that newspaper to investigate the occurrence on the spot, and whose account was never challenged, either by the Irish Times or the representative of the Tory Government of the day, or by anyone else, from that day to this. Writing from Loughrea on 4th March, 1905, he says:—
      "I made careful inquiries in reference to this report, and I was informed by the police authorities that no shot was fired, either at or into Mr. Persse'a house by anybody."
      This is admitted by Mr. Persse to-day for the first time. The Freeman's Journal Commissioner goes on to say—
      "I made further inquiries to-day in reference to the phantom shooting by phantom moonlighters into the house of Mr. H. Persse on Thursday night. On Thursday evening I learn Mr. Persse was upstairs in his house dressing for dinner. He heard a crash like the breaking of glass, and rushed down asking what it was. In the hall he met an English lady, who handed him a double-barrelled gun which was in the hall. He seized it, opened the hall door, and shouted, 'Police!' The police were quartered in an outhouse adjacent to Mr. Persse'a residence, and they were instantly on the scene. The police searched every inch of the place, but no trace of a moonlighter was to be seen. The only human being they discovered was a man named Mike Mannion, who is a kind of general factotum for Mr. Persse. Mike said he was looking after the rabbit traps, but he saw no moonlighters."
      1146
      This is the whole story of the diabolical moonlight outrage. I challenge the Attorney-General, as the representative of the Irish Government in this House to-night, to deny that this is the absolutely true account of what took place. As I have already pointed out, we have a dramatic confirmation to-day from Mr. Persse himself that there were no moonlighters, and that no shots were fired. Now this is the gentleman who is here to-day rehearsing in English drawing-rooms what is alleged to be going on in Ireland, and inducing people to believe that the country is in a state of disturbance necessitating the expenditure of thousands upon thousands of pounds upon the police. That lie about the outrage on Mr. Persse at Woodville, which was spread at the time was published all over the world. I read it in big type in American papers, I read it in Australian papers, I read it in French papers, and the contradiction which I have given now has never reached the public through these papers, and that bogus moonlighting outrage at Mr. Persse's house has passed into the kind of history that is made up upon this agrarian question in this country. It is monstrous that a gentleman with a record such as this should ask anybody in England to take his word when he comes to tell them of alleged outrages in any part of Ireland. If he lied with reference to this transaction, who can take his word in reference to any story he tells in London drawing-rooms. I dwell upon this incident in order to emphasise the point made by my hon. friend the Member for South Roscommon that these extra police are requisitioned largely owing to the panic created by the dissemination of lying stories in this country. I have more than once said in this House that there is a section of the Press and a section of certain politicians in this country who, quite regardless of the highest interests of this country in connection with Ireland, are sedulously devoting themselves to the object of trying to create the belief in Great Britain that Ireland is in a state of crime and outrage. I have exposed one of these stories. It is typical of many others. I have only taken this particular instance because it is the case of this gentleman who has come over here to pose as a poor persecuted farmer, and to ask the people of this country to take his word with reference

      1147
      to the state of Ireland. I warn the people of this country not to trust the word of a man whose record is such as I have shown in connection with this case, and I beg the Government not to persist in throwing into these districts large bodies of police on the information of persons of this kind, but to investigate every case of alleged outrage and to enter into the consideration of it with suspicion in their minds, because it has been too often the habit of English Governments to take for granted every story of crime and outrage that comes to them. I beg the Government when a story comes to them to view it with suspicion, and not to act upon it until they have assured themselves by the clearest possible evidence that there is at any rate some ray of truth in it. I sincerely trust that the House will make a protest against what is going on in Ireland, by voting with my hon friend.
      *MR. BARRIEsaid they all appreciated the eloquence and skill with which the hon. Member for Waterford had tried to draw a red herring across the path. They were asked to conclude from what the hon. and learned Gentleman had said about one case, and from the element of doubt which he had suggested, that the case was typical of many others of which the House had made painful acquaintance in recent weeks. Instead of dwelling on the picture which the hon. and learned Gentleman had drawn, he preferred to refer briefly to the statements made by the hon. Member for South Roscommon, and to the arguments which he adduced in favour of the rejection of this most important Vote. The hon. Member's argument was—[A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Persse]. He did not think it necessary to take notice of that interruption. The hon. Member for South Roscommon had assured the House that this was an unnecessary Vote. He admired the courage of the hon. Member who could stand up and make that statement. The hon. Member had reminded them that the cost of the Royal Irish Constabulary was £1,500,000 per annum, and he had contrasted the cost of the police in Great Britain and Ireland. In England it was 2s. 8d. per head of the population, in Scotland 2s. 2d., and in Ireland 6s. 8d. He could not help reflecting why the cost of this force was so great in Ireland; and he was bound
      1148
      to say as a Member of this House who had the honour to represent a peaceful and orderly constituency, that in the speeches, of which they had had a fair sample in that delivered by the hon. Member for Roscommon, they discovered an explanation of the great increase in the cost of the Royal Irish Constabulary. [Ironical cheers from the IRISH Benches.] He deliberately stated that by the speeches of different Members of the House, the discontent and crime and outrage prevailing in Ireland had been largely stimulated; and it was because of those unfortunate speeches, alas! only too typical of those to which they had been accustomed for so many years, that this Government were in the unfortunate position of coming to the House and asking for a Vote, substantial, though comparatively small, of £5,000 to cover the extra cost of making what he must consider the very feeble attempts of the Government to maintain law and order in Ireland. They were told by the hon. Member who moved the reduction of the Vote that he had been considerably mystified by the fact that the Government had only proclaimed some counties in September last, and yet they had had the audacity to charge the cost of extra police on those counties as far back as July. He believed the hon. Gentleman was a member of a county council.
      MR. HAYDEN: No.
      *MR. BARRIEsaid he regretted the hon. Member was not; but many Nationalist Members enjoyed that privilege in common with himself. He was sure that if the hon. Gentleman had been he would have known that the Government did not require to proclaim any county in Ireland in order to recover the cost of the special force of police necessary for the preservation of law and order in that country. They had been told that the county of Galway had been charged £1,100, and county Clare £900 for extra police. He admitted that these were large sums, and with one or two others they covered the larger proportion of the extra cost which had been thrown on the country because of the unfortunate state of certain parts of it. They had also been told by some Members that they had encouraged the efforts of the people to obtain the fulfilment of the promises which they had

      1149
      received from the British Government; and again, they had again repeated the pitiable spectacle of Members asserting that it was only by agrarian outrages in Ireland that certain legislation could be obtained. He desired to point out that any such assertions were only bound to intensify the evil about which he and his friends complained. Let him say now what he had never before said in that House, that he thought the time had come when they were fairly entitled to ask the Government why it was that with so many recorded crimes in Ireland the proportion of arrests were so small? He was in the City of Dublin a fortnight ago, and there met a sergeant of the Royal Irish Constabulary formerly stationed in the North of Ireland. He took the liberty of saying to him that they in the North were disappointed that the proportion of arrests in regard to crimes committed was so small, and he asked him whether there was any explanation for it. He would not soon forget the answer that he got. It was that, since the present Government came into power, there had been, the officer said, a feeling throughout the constabulary, to put it exactly in the words that were used to him, "That the less we do and the less we see we will be the better thanked." He believed there was a great element of truth in that statement, and he was glad if the law officers of the Crown in Ireland were beginning to see for themselves that this discouraging idea prevailed amongst those charged with the maintenance of law and order in Ireland, because it gave them an opportunity of making it plain there that night whet they had never yet done, that they were prepared to stand behind the Constabulary in Ireland when they tried to do their duty.
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Was the sergeant who informed you Sergeant Sheridan?
      *MR. BARRIEsaid he wondered what their hon. friend below the gangway would do if it were not for these repeated references to Sergeant Sheridan. The figures they were asked to vote that night were sufficiently ominous, although covering only £5,000 for sustenance and travelling expenses of extra police. The Chief Secretary in reply to a question
      1150
      the other day, said that during the last six months over 800 constables had been enrolled in Ireland. They would deal with that figure when the Estimates came on, but on the present occasion they could deal only with the special items before them. He thought he was correct in saying that the sustenance allowance per night for a constable was only one shilling and sixpence, and it was a very easy calculation for the House to make in order to see how many days duty had been performed by the number of police who were now engaged. They had heard that evening that the sustenance allowance received by certain Post Office officials was three shillings a night, so that the one and sixpence could not be considered excessive. He repudiated the idea that there was any desire on the part of the authorities to shift police from one end of the country to another, when police might have been found in neighbouring counties. The total sum they were asked to vote then spoke far more eloquently than any tongue could of the state of the country, and they were glad that the Government had come forward at this stage, earlier in the session than usual, to tell the Committee that they were determined to see that adequate provision was made for special constables where necessary in the disaffected parts of the country. Speaking from those benches he desired to say nothing that could be further from their wishes than to exaggerate the present state of Ireland. He claimed to have a fair knowledge of Ireland, and he said that nothing that had been stated in that House by any of his colleagues had in the slightest degree exaggerated the unrest, the disaffection, and the pain and injury that had been inflicted on many loyal, quiet, and peaceable citizens in many parts of that unhappy country. He did not hope that they would immediately see a great reform in that matter, but he did think that now that public opinion had been attracted to the matter the Press of Great Britain would not be intimidated in any course they chose to take by anything that was said from time to time from the benches below the Gangway. This much he did say and with it he would conclude, that no man would rejoice more fully and amply than he would, if the time had come when their friends below the Gangway realised

      1151
      that the Government was no longer to be intimidated and that they were now prepared, even somewhat late in the day, to maintain law and order, which was the first and primary duty even of a great Radical Government.
      MR. RICHARDSONsaid that as an English taxpayer and as a representative of English taxpayers, he rose for the purpose of protesting against being asked to contribute towards the expenses of the Royal Irish Constrabulary, considering the principal occupation in which they were engaged. He had often asked himself the question, what was the reason why in this country, in at least forty constituences, the deciding factor was an alien vote, namely, the Irish vote. He was quite convinced that the Irish in our large towns and cities were not in this country because they loved England more than they loved their own country. The chief instrument that was used for the driving of Irishmen beyond the sea and into this country was the Royal Irish Constabulary. He would not have risen but for the fact that some four or five years ago he, with one of the members of the present Cabinet visited southwest Ireland, and the scenes they witnessed, especially with regard to the Royal Irish Constabulary, he would never forget. Wherever they went, at whatever station they stopped, they found at least two of the Royal Irish Constabulary. When they arrived at a little place which was then supposed to be a centre of disturbance, wherever they went they were closely followed. After attending a meeting which was held on a Good Friday at the market place they set out to look at the poor people on one of the estates hard by, and no less than fourteen of the Royal Irish Constabulary followed them on bicycles and jaunting cars. But the thing which cut deepest into his soul was when they went out to the hills about eight miles away, and he was shown a hovel, with an earth floor, in which a man and his wife were living who had been evicted from a farm hard by, the rental value of which was £35, whilst four of the Royal Irish Constabulary who were protecting the land-grabber had a beautiful police hut and were guarding that property at a cost of £400 a year to the country. For these reasons he hoped
      1152
      the hon. Member opposite would go to a division. If he did he would support him.
      MR. CULLINANsaid they had recently heard from Members above the Gangway extraordinary statements with regard to the necessity for putting coercion in force in Ireland. But in 1902, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover was Chief Secretary, there was discontent over the land question. A Bill was introduced that year which was not acceptable to the Irish Party. It was withdrawn. Discontent raged and coercion was in full swing. Several of his colleagues were imprisoned. In the autumn of that year they were promised a comprehensive Land Act and immediately the discontent disappeared, the Coercion Act was withdrawn, and the prison doors were opened. When the general council of county councils protested against an excessive charge being placed upon them the Chief Secretary withdrew the charge. That was greatly at variance with the auguments now used by Gentlemen above the Gangway who said that the only way to govern and control Ireland was by coercion. If the late Government had withdrawn the charges against the county councils it was monstrous that the present Government should try to enforce them, especially where the county councils had no voice in the matter. The elected representatives of the people who managed their affairs in a most creditable manner were simply asked to pay these demands without any consultation as to the needs of the district. They knew exactly what the position of affairs was, and they were the parties who were competent to say whether extra police were necessary or not. It was not they but the local policeman or resident magistrate who was consulted, and they knew very well that crime and outrage in Ireland was butter to the bread of the removable magistrates, and of the police who magnified cases in order to try to get promotion. It was an extraordinary fact also that in the Land Act of 1903 they had provision made for the buying up of grass lands and for their distribution among the people. They had also in the Evicted

      1153
      Tenants Act increased powers given to the Estates Commissioners, and the real secret of any trouble there was in Ireland was attributable to the weakness of the Government in enforcing the existing law. Let them contrast the misery of people who had to pay exorbitant rents without any help or assistance whatever with the happiness and contentment and industry of the tenants on estates that had adapted purchase. He well remembered the right hon. Member for Dover distinctly stating that any body of tenants in Ireland who fought against the law would be put on the bottom of the list and would not be recognised by the Estates Commissioners. What was the value of such a statement as that coming from gentlemen like the right hon. Member for Dover? Immediately the Act was in force one of the very first properties bought by the Estates Commissioners was the de Freyne and the adjoining estates. Whatever this trouble might be it was attributable simply to the fact that the Act of 1903 and the Evicted Tenants Act of last year were being interfered with and hampered by an outburst here and there. An outrage was supposed to have been committed in Tipperary, a bomb being placed on the lawn in front of a house. It exploded, but was pointed in the opposite direction from the house and did no harm to anybody. This happened while there were three policemen in the house with a poor, delicate, lonely widow, who weighed only about twenty-four stone, and who was the most masculine female in their part of the world. Could anyone in his senses believe that anybody in the locality would for a moment run the risk of planting and exploding a bomb in front of that house? He had suggested to the lady's solicitor that the way to settle the matter would be to sell her property to the Estates Commissioners. The solicitor took steps at once, and the negotiations were entered into in a most friendly manner, and were on the point of being arranged when the explosion took place. Was there any reason to believe for a moment that it was the work of any friend of the tenants? It was the work of an enemy, and instead of getting extra police to put down the United Irish League, what they wanted was to remove
      1154
      the causes of trouble and discontent. He hoped that when the amending Bill was introduced its provisions would not permit of the smooth working of the Land Act and the Evicted Tenants Act being hampered and interfered with.
      CAPTAIN J. CRAIGsaid he never met Mr. Persse, and in fact had never heard of him until a few days ago. With his customary fairness he had expected that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford in quoting a letter from The Times of that morning would have at least read the concluding paragraph. What had been referred to occurred in 1905. In the concluding paragraph of his letter Mr. Persse said—
      "It his not been, and cannot be contradicted… that at Woodville, county Gal-way, I am protected by sometimes four and sometimes five policemen day and night. I am boycotted to the extent that I cannot get the necessities of life, nor labour for my fields, nor my horses shod."
      It was very unfair of the hon. and learned Member to stop reading the letter where he did. No member of this Committee could suggest for a moment it was untrue that this man was still being persecuted, boycotted, and treated in a manner which in this country was practically unknown. ["No, no."] It had been shown that the state of affairs in Ireland was not satisfactory. The Chief Secretary stated when he came into office that Ireland was more peaceful and satisfactory than it had been for the last 600 years. ["Oh, oh!"]
      MR. J. MACVEAGH: Order for Cicero.
      CAPTAIN J. CRAIG, continuing, said that notwithstanding that statement by the Chief Secretary the Committee was now being asked for an increased grant of £5,000 for assisting the constabulary How was it that they were being asked to spend £30,000 more on the constabulary in Ireland for maintaining law and order under the present Chief Secretary than under the last Administration? This money was all frittered away upon an administration in Ireland which kept them not under the law of the land, but under the law of the United Irish League. Throughout this debate there had been a

      1155
      tendency to cast a slur upon the good name of the Royal Irish Constabulary. Whatever might be the Government in power or the tactics of the Home Rule Party, whatever the Irish Unionists might say or do, it had always been the pride and glory of Ireland that the Constabulary were able and willing to carry out their duties. They might be wrong sometimes. [NATIONALIST Cries of "No, never."] They might make mistakes like other people, but they had always felt that if the law was in the hands of strong men in Ireland, backed up by the best force of Constabulary in the world, Ireland would be peaceful and quiet. The Unionists had been blamed for using expressions which had caused all this disorder in Ireland. What expressions had fallen from the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench and from those who represented the present Administration in the Upper House? He maintained that it was those expressions which had created so much chaos and disorder in Ireland. Speeches had been made by members of the Government both in Parliament and outside, in which they had declared that cattle-driving was not considered by the Government a very serious matter. He and his friends maintained that such language excited the cupidity of a certain class in Ireland—cupidity of a socialistic nature, which if carried to its logical conclusion would permit people in London who desired to obtain some of the large jewellers' shops or some of the wealthy drapers' establishments to tamper with those premises, to scatter the goods about, and to look to the responsible Minister to rise in the House and say that after all it was only a haggle of the market. The hon. Member who moved the reduction of the Vote could not understand the necessity for police being present at some meetings, seeing that all the people in the neighbourhood to which he was referring were agreed. Were the poor herdsmen who were guarding the cattle and the farmers who occupied the land included among the people who were agreed? The meetings were often for the purpose of intimidating those very people, and impressing upon them the terrors of the United Irish League. It would be disastrous for Ireland if any responsible Minister countenanced the suggestion
      1156
      that such action would hasten legislation. The first essential to the introduction of any Act dealing with land or any other property in Ireland must be the sternest determination of the Government to maintain law and order. The unfortunate fact of the present movement was that it was directed not so much against landlords as against those who could less easily protect themselves—against farmers, herdsmen, and all classes of shopkeepers who were not so well able as landlords to leave the country. If these proceedings were allowed to continue he was afraid that in time Ireland would see an even greater decrease of population than had been the case recently. There was only one remedy, and that was for the law to be enforced against all, irrespective of persons. It was not his intention to vote against the Government on this Vote. His objection to the voting of an additional £5,000 was the fact admitting that the Government which found the country so peaceful when they came into office were now compelled to admit that their Administration had been a failure, and that Ireland was not so peaceful as it ought to be.
      MR. DILLONsaid he wished to say a few words in support of his hon. friend's Amendment. He thought hon. Members would join in feeling astonishment that no attempt had been made by hon. Members above the gangway to reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Waterford. Two Unionist Members from Ireland had addressed the Committee since that speech was made. He had never heard a more damning charge made against one of the missionaries of Unionism from Ireland. He fully expected hon. Members above the gangway to rise and vindicate the character of Mr. Persse.
      CAPTAIN J. CRAIG: I only heard of him a few days ago.
      MR. DILLONsaid he directed the attention of Members of the House, and he wished he could direct the attention of the public of this country, to the fact that when these lying charges, which were

      1157
      made in the drawing-rooms of London where there was no one to contradict them, were challenged on the floor of this House, the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, sat silent, and a Unionist Member from Ireland declared he knew nothing about Mr. Persse.
      CAPTAIN J. CRAIG: All I said was that personally I never heard of him until a few days ago, and I knew nothing whatever about him.
      MR. DILLON: The hon. Member for East Down was not the only Unionist Member who stood up and spoke. The learned and hon. Member for Londonderry, North, spoke before him.
      MR. BARRIE: May I also say I have no personal knowledge of Mr. Persse. At the same time, I do not think the charge made here to-night against that gentleman should be made in a place where he cannot make reply.
      AN IRISH MEMBER: Who could reply in a duchess's drawing-room?
      MR. DILLON: Who commenced this campaign?
      MR. BARRIE: You did.
      MR. DILLON: What about the duchess's drawing-room? Is it no crime to tell lies against a nation and to blackguard a whole people?
      MR. T. L. CORRETTEvery word is true. [NATIONALIST and MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh."]
      MR. DILLON: Every word is false, and I say it has been proved on the floor of the House by the hon. Member for Waterford to be false.
      MR. BARRIE: I am exceedingly sorry to interrupt, and you will bear me out, Sir, when I say I am not accustomed to do so, but I challenge the hon. Member
      1158
      who makes these charges to make them where he can be held responsible.
      MR. HAYDEN: This is not a duchess's drawing-room.
      MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Send him an invitation to the duchess's drawing-room.
      MR. DILLONsaid he was sorry to say he was not favoured with invitations to the Duchess of St. Albans', and therefore, he was not likely to have an opportunity of meeting Mr. Persse. Rut let him recall to the minds of members of the Committee the main points in the story told by the hon. Member for Waterford, which had been left unchallenged. He remembered one sentence—a most significant one—which fell from the hon. Member for East Down. He said that he did not know Mr. Persse, but his was the strongest case they could bring forward to show the chaotic and lawless condition of Ireland, and the hon. Member turned round to those benches and asked was there anyone would deny that Mr. Persse was boycotted in the year of grace 1908. Rut the significant fact was that he was boycotted in January, 1905, when the right hon. Member for Dover, and later when the right hon. Member for South Dublin, was Chief Secretary. Mr. Persse was boycotted throughout the whole of the period of the Government of the right hon. Gentleman, which had been held up over and over again as the period when the law was maintained unquestioned. What was the statement made by the correspondent of the Irish Times, which Mr. Persse had left uncontradicted? That in the first week in March, 1905, he (Mr. Persse), having been boycotted in January, went up to the Castle of Dublin, that he interviewed a high official, that the high official promised to send him down police huts and policemen, and charge them upon the district as extra police; that that promise was broken, and that for some reason not known to him, the Government sent him word that they would not send down the police, but that if he wanted police he would have to

      1159
      pay for them himself. Was that true, or was it false? Mr. Persse might have complained, and if it were true that he did complain, and that the police were refused, he would like to know the grounds given to the high official at Dublin Castle by the local police, and who the high official in Dublin was. But that was not all. Mr. Persse got his three police, and he asked Members of the Liberal Party sitting opposite to picture to themselves what would be said from the Unionist Benches if a boycotted man came forward with this story and charged the Chief Secretary of a Liberal Government with having refused him police protection and declared he was told he would have to pay for the police himself if he wanted them. Of course what was perfectly legitimate in the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, who was a true-blooded Tory, and above suspicion, would be high treason in a Liberal Chief Secretary. No such charge was made against the present Chief Secretary. On the contrary, Mr. Persse said he was now protected by about ten police. Mr. Persse went on, in the statement he made to the correspondent of the Irish Times, to say that he was refused by the Government of the day police protection except at his own charge. He got them, and he stationed three policemen in his outhouse, and then there arose this extraordinary attack upon his house, which went the rounds of all the newspapers in the world. It was published in every newspaper in this country, but the Irish Members were unable to get any contradiction of it published. He must direct attention to the way the Irish Members were treated. Question after question was put to the then Attorney - General, and on March 15th, 1905, the Member for South Tyrone asked the Attorney-General if he would say whether there was any official report of the alleged outrage on Woodville House. Mr. Atkinson, who was then Attorney-General, replied that the occurrence consisted in this: that the fanlight over the door was broken, it was believed, by a blow from a stone. The matter, he said—
      "is receiving, and will continue to receive the close attention of the police, but for the reasons given on Thursday I must decline to disclose the contents of other Reports."
      1160
      He (Mr. Dillon) put a subsequent Question, and he got exactly the same reply. On May 31st, 1905, on a Motion to repeal the Coercion Act, he challenged the Government to say whether the whole of this occurrence from beginning to end was not an invention, and later on he said—
      "That the whole story from beginning to end was a deliberate invention, invented by Ash-town and his gang of liars organised for the purpose of blackening the reputation of Ireland."
      Still the Government of the day maintained an obstinate silence. Now it was manifest—and he did not believe it was intended to be contradicted—that the whole thing was a bogus outrage, that there were no moonlighters, that no shots were exchanged, although Mr. Persse said in his telegram he went out to the door, exchanged shots, and pursued the moonlighters. The whole thing now had been proved to be an invention. It was now admitted that the whole thing was bogus, and he believed that by it Mr. Persse achieved his object and got rid of the necessity of paying for the police. Yet London was ringing with the sufferings of Mr. Persse, and there was not a dinner-table at which the subject was not mentioned. After what they bad heard from the Unionist Members that evening, and after their failure to defend their action, he thought they were entitled to ask the Government to let the light of day in upon this matter and let them know what were the confidential police reports in connection with these bogus outrages. No doubt Mr. Persse was boycotted because he joined Lord Clanricarde in his war upon his tenants. They could not, however, shut their eyes to the situation, inasmuch as it was fifteen years ago that Lord St. Aldwyn announced in this House that he had put pressure within the law on Lord Clanricarde to try and alleviate his tyranny, that Lord Clanricarde was still the puzzle of the Government of the country, and the centre of disturbance, and a man who joined him was likely to be boycotted. Was such a man as this worthy of credence in his description of alleged outrages? After listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Waterford, he said that any Unionist Member ought to be ashamed to have anything to

      1161
      do with the case of Mr. Persse, or in future to refer to the matter.
      *THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): My first duty to-night is to deplore the absence of the Chief Secretary, who would if present have replied upon this Vote. It is impossible for my right hon. friend to be here to-night, but I hope we shall have him in his place on Monday. As to the Vote, it is with the very greatest regret that we are compelled to ask for this sum, which although trifling, still is an extra sum of £5,000 for the police. I think hon. Members will agree with me that if the Government were as neglectful of their duties and as indifferent to the maintenance of law and order in Ireland as they are told they are by hon. Gentlemen opposite, they would not have come to the House for this extra money. It was because we were deeply anxious last summer to preserve peace and order in Ireland, and to give every individual, no matter what his politics or business, the full protection of the law, that we felt constrained to proclaim six counties as being in a state of disturbance, and requiring the presence of extra police. Those six counties are Clare, Galway, King's County, Leitrim, Longford, and Roscommon, and they are the only counties in Ireland in which there is any trouble at present. It is said in the newspapers that Ireland is in a state of anxiety, but there are only six counties out of thirty-two in which there is the least trouble and difficulty, and even in those six the trouble is not at all so great as is said from the benches opposite. We have limited the number of extra police as much as possible, and the greatest care will be taken that no unnecessary force is employed in any county. The largest number we have had sent into any county is into Galway, where we have 145 extra police at the present moment. The next largest number was in Roscommon, where there were 133 police who were brought in shortly after the proclamation, and that number is now reduced to ninety-five. The total number of extra police employed in all Ireland, both under the proclamation and under the other power, which the Lord - Lieutenant possesses, was 408. They are required
      1162
      chiefly because of the reprehensible practice of cattle-driving, and that is really almost the sole explanation of the necessity for the extra police, and the fact that we are asking for them is no indication whatever that in other respects there is more crime and outrage in Ireland than in years past. The hon. Member for South Roscommon denies that there are any disturbed districts at all, but I cannot agree with that. He also complained that Roscommon had been charged with a moiety of the expense of the extra police sent, not only under the proclamation, but under the other powers of the Lord-Lieutenant. That matter has been carefully looked into by the law officers, and they are quite satisfied that there is power, and even the obligation, under the Acts to charge a half of the expense of police upon the county to which they are sent, either under the proclamation or under the general powers of the Lord-Lieutenant. As to the complaint that too many police have been sent in some cases, that is a matter which must be left to the judgment of the officers on the spot. It is difficult sometimes for the officers to form a correct judgment beforehand, and unfortunately sometimes the force sent is too large and sometimes too small. In the two cases mentioned by the hon. Member, the two officers formed a different judgment, and while one sent a small force the other sent a large one. It must be left to the discretion of the police officer to say how many will be required.
      MR. HAYDENasked if the Attorney-General could mention a case in which the number was too small?
      *MR. CHERRY: There have been disturbances in some instances which would have been prevented if there had been a larger force of police available. The riot at Hill Street was a case in point. I can assure the hon. Member that the Government do everything they can, with safety, to reduce the number of the police. We do not want, however, to render ourselves liable to the charge of neglecting our duty. The hon. and learned Member for Water-ford has alluded to the case of Mr. Persse, and has asked me to produce the police reports and to say whether it is true that he was refused police protection I am unable to do so at the moment. The

      1163
      matter took place before I became Attorney-General; but if the hon. Member will put down a Question on the Paper for Monday next, then I hope the Chief Secretary will be able to give the hon. Member satisfactory information in reply. I am surprised that the right hon. Member for South Dublin, who was Chief Secretary during a great portion of that time, has sat there the whole of the evening and has not attempted to make any explanation or statement.
      MR. WALTER LONG: Wait.
      *MR. CHERRY: I think the explanation might have been given immediately after the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. However, the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, knows what is the proper course to pursue. I cannot control his actions in any way, but I certainly would like to hear from him whether the statement by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford represents the facts. The hon. Member for North Londonderry has made a serious charge against the police to the effect that they were guilty of deliberately refraining from doing their duty, and he has stated that a sergeant had told him that the less the police do and see the better.
      MR. BARRIEsaid he suggested that in the north of Ireland they were disappointed at the small number of arrests compared with the recorded number of serious crimes, and the sergeant answered that undoubtedly since this Government came into power there was a feeling throughout the force that the Government were not behind them in showing the same amount of energy as their predecessors.
      *MR. CHERRY: I think that is a very gross charge to make against the Government, and to my certain knowledge it is absolutely untrue. I am constantly in communication with the police, and I know that they are discharging their duty to the best of their ability. I have the highest opinion of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and I could not give a single instance where the police have: done anything for which they could be fairly or justly blamed, and it is very unreasonable
      1164
      and unjust to make charges of that kind against the police.
      MR. BARRIE: Our charges are against you.
      *MR. CHERRY: Of course the hon. Member can make any charge he likes against me, but if he says that I have not been doing my duty in this respect he is saying something which is absolutely contrary to the fact. In no single instance which has come to my knowledge have I done anything to prevent a prosecution.
      MR. BARRIE: Perhaps I may be allowed to recall the Attorney-General's decision in the case of Larkin.
      *MR. CHERRY: In a case where a jury has disagreed it is unusual to prosecute a second time, but I have violated that rule in prosecution more than once. Larkin was prosecuted for assault in connection with the strike in Belfast. There were two persons charged and the jury acquitted one and disagreed in the other case. As the strike was over and the city peaceful I thought the ends of justice would be perfectly satisfied without any further prosecutions. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER; "The Empire remains unshaken."] It is really our sincere hope to be able to reduce the number of extra police who are dispensed with as far as we possibly can.
      MR. WALTER LONG: I share entirely the regret of the Attorney-General at the absence of the Chief Secretary, and the cause of his absence, and I hope that he may soon be back again. I regret his absence because I believe that had he been present the defence he would have made of the action and policy of the Government would have been much more complete and much more vigorous than that which has been attempted by the Attorney-General. I really think the Attorney-General might have made out a stronger case. He wound up his speech by stating that the police were sent to the railway stations, a custom which he believes to be peculiar to Ireland, because they had nothing better to do. To my certain knowledge

      1165
      it is part of the duty of the police of this country to be in attendance on our platforms at the stations. [Cries of "No, no."] Oh, yes, it is. I think, too, that the Attorney-General will find that some time before I left office the attendance of the Royal Irish Constabulary at the stations on the platforms had been largely dispensed with, and that in a number of cases this duty was put an end to altogether. That being the case, the right hon. Gentleman might at all events have mentioned it in his reply, instead of telling the Committee, in order to raise a laugh, that the police were sent there when they had nothing better to do. That is not the case at all. They were sent there for very good reasons—because it was thought by the authorities to be necessary, and unless I am altogether wrong it was under the Party to which I belong that the change was made, and in a large number of cases the attendance of the police was dispensed with. The Attorney-General has complained that we on this side of the House have charged the Government with having been neglectful. Well, that is only half our charge. We go further than that, and say that through their want of complete and full action their policy with regard to Ireland has failed. Can there be a greater proof of that than the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Roscommon. The speech of every Member who has spoken from below the gangway has been in condemnation of the action of the Government, and has been consistent with the policy which the hon. Members adopt, but which the Government, though they may believe it in their hearts, are afraid openly to profess and avow. Hon. Gentlemen accused them of increasing the police force. What is the Attorney-General's reply? He tells us—
      "It is quite true we have increased the police; we are very sorry for it; we hope we will be able to decrease the numbers; we will do our best; we have only done it where necessary. The increase is only a small one, six counties, and so many in each county "—
      and so on—a faint-hearted apology for doing their duty, for increasing the police force when necessary in order to give the protection of law to people in Ireland. For that the head of the Irish Bar makes an humble apology to the House of Commons, and hopes he will be forgiven this time, if he promises not to do it again
      1166
      The position of the Government, of course, is an extremely difficult one. They are on the horns of a dilemma. They have professed that everything in Ireland is better than it has been before. We have had the Attorney-General telling us that all the statements about the unrest or agitation or agrarian offences are exaggerated, and that extra police protection is not necessary. Why for the first time for twenty-two years is the Irish Government obliged to come to Parliament to ask for a Supplementary Vote for the Irish Constabulary? Why, if there is all this absence of unrest and agitation, is it that the Irish Government have been compelled to proclaim these counties and to come for a large Supplementary Vote, first for law expenses, and now for the police? What is the indictment of the hon. Gentleman below the gangway? It is that these extra charges for police, for law officers, and law expenses, are all improper and unnecessary, because the cases in respect of which they are incurred are not real cases. We have had the case of Mr. Persse quoted, and the Attorney-General attacks me for not having risen before in order to deal with it. He knows very well that I have no access to the Papers. I shall say—I had no intention of evading it—what my personal recollection and knowledge of the case is. Nobody knows better than the Attorney-General that the Papers dealing with the case are in the possession of the Irish Government. The Irish Government know what was the policy adopted by the Government when I was responsible. They know who the official was to whom application was made, and they know what were the particular circumstances which led to the reply Mr. Persse alleges he received. All I know of the case I am prepared to tell the House. An application was made when I was Chief Secretary for, I think, additional police. Mr. Persse was already, I believe—but I am not quite sure—under partial police protection. Application was made for additional police protection. I took the steps which I imagine the present Government would take. I caused inquiries to be made on the spot. I believed Mr. Persse was receiving such protection at the hands of the police as made his life and property secure. I gave instructions that everything was to be done that was necessary to protect him and his property. Having

      1167
      done that, my duty in the matter ended. I do not know what the circumstances of the Reports were. I have no copies of them, and I have no access to them. But I can say that so far as I am concerned there is nothing connected with the case that I have any desire to have concealed. I am surprised that the Attorney-General should try to divert the attack made directly not upon me, but upon the Government, by asking me to produce information which he knows well is open only to the Government.
      MR. CHERRY: I have already explained to the House that I had not the papers. I have telegraphed for them, but they have not arrived. I thought the Tight hon. Gentleman would have remembered the circumstances.
      MR. WALTER LONG: In the nearly thirty years I have been in this House I have never heard a more unfair suggestion made by any Member, and certainly not by any Member on the Front Bench. The Attorney - General must know perfectly well that cases of boycotting occurred during the time of all Chief Secretaries, and that they were the most difficult cases to deal with, but there was nothing Connected with Mr. Persse's case in 1905 which brought it specially under my notice. Mr. Persse's case was one of those cases which came under my notice, and I make no complaint because hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway attacked' me,; but for the Attorney-General to try to; divert the attack from himself and turn it on to me is the most astounding method of defence I. have ever listened to. [NATIONALIST cries of "Oh, oh!"] I understand the charge to be in regard to. Mr. Persse that the outrage was a bogus one. If it was a bogus outrage, by, all means let the truth be ascertained, and let those be held responsible who have been guilty of so gross a crime. But that is no answer to Mr. Persse's statement that he is boycotted and unable to live as most men are. Surely he is as much entitled as any man to the protection of the law. If you want his land, why not legislate and get it by fair means? Surely it is no answer to say that Mr. Persse's boycott is inevitable because he occupies some of the land upon the Clanricarde estate. Are we to be told that this gentleman, if he
      1168
      is occupying land according to law, has to submit to persecution of this kind because his land is wanted for some other purpose? What an astounding argument that is. Why should they try to drive this man out of the occupation of his land by making his life intolerable? I do not think the Attorney-General need have apologised so humbly for the extra police employed in order to give protection to Mr. Persse. The position of the Government is one which commands our commiseration. They have told us that all our statements are exaggerated, and that cattle-driving has been described by hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House in most exaggerated language. When I was dealing with the question of cattle-driving upon a former occasion I quoted the language of the Attorney General himself, in which he said the country was getting into a state of turmoil and terror.
      MR. CHERRY: I said it might lead to that if it was allowed to continue.
      MR. WALTER LONG: The Attorney-General said that the reserve force at the depôts was so depleted that it would be necessary to proclaim certain counties so as to secure repayment from those counties. The Government claim that theirs is? an administration of peace and conciliation, but now they have to admit that the police force was so depleted that they were obliged to proceed by proclamation under an Act of William III. In the indictment we have levelled against the Government, we have not used exaggerated language, because we have quoted the language of members of His Majesty's Government; we have not produced bogus figures, because they are the figures of the Government. It is, however, no part of our intention to vote against this Supplementary Estimate which is required for the service of the police, although we consider that the Government have done their duty in a way which had ensured failure rather than suceess. Because of that, we find it our duty to express in as strong language as we can our view of the incapacity of the Irish Government in dealing with the difficulty.
      * MR. KETTLEsaid that the voting of an extra £5,000 for the Irish Constabulary was to Ireland a very

      1169
      serious matter, and this campaign of calumny was a subject which he thought might very properly engage the attention of the House even at 12.20. The net result of the debate was "that the duchess is very sorry she gave that tea party." They were all struck by one characteristic of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin—he kept away from Mr. Persse as long as he decently could, and he dropped him as soon as he decently could. He was not able to give them any specific recollections of the case when it was submitted to his notice. Surely the facts of the case must have fixed themselves on the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. The story had been published in the Unionist Press of this country, and it had also been published in continental countries and in America. The right hon. Gentleman was only able to tell the Committee that all necessary steps should be taken to protect Mr. Persse. But the real point was whether it was necessary to send down extra police to protect Mr. Persse. The Government had refused again and again to produce the police reports in this case or to hold an inquiry. Why were the papers not produced? He could tell the Committee. It was because the woes of Mr. Persse were only discovered last Sunday. They were discovered by a leading Tory Sunday newspaper on the day before the Home Rule
      debate. Mr. Persse was discovered last Sunday, and in the interval between then and now he had been found out. He was sorry the hon. Member for North Derry had gone away, because he wished to remind that hon. Gentleman that according to statistics the increase in the number of offences in county Derry was greater than that in any other county in Ireland. But in Derry the cost of extra police was £42, whilst in Roscommon it was £1,699. The political ideals of hon. Members above the Gangway was an Ireland in which every man would be a policeman. In Ireland the policeman was everything but a policeman. Frequently he was an author, the producer of threatening literature. Sometimes he maimed cattle, and got innocent men sent to gaol. The constabulary were now and again described as an army of occupation. It was really an army of no occupation. In his official capacity the Irish policeman was a mixture, of about equal parts of soldier and spy. He hoped the House and the British people would realise that resolute government in Ireland was considerably more expensive than the most generous form of Home Rule.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes, 63; Noes, 142. (Division List No. 20.)

      AYES.

      Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

      Jenkins, J.

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Ambrose, Robert

      Johnson, John (Gateshead)

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Boland, John

      Jowett, F. W.

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Brace, William

      Joyce, Michael

      Reddy, M.

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Kelly, George D.

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Cooper, G. J.

      Kettle, Thomas Michael

      Redmond, William (Clare)

      Cremer, Sir William Randal

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

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

      Cullinan, J.

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

      Richardson, A.

      Curran, Peter Francis

      MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Devlin, Joseph

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

      Roche, John (Galway, East)

      Dillon, John

      MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal. E.)

      Seddon, J.

      Duffy, William J.

      M'Killop, W.

      Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

      Meagher, Michael

      Summerbell, T.

      Flynn, James Christopher

      Mooney, J. J.

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Fullerton, Hugh

      Muldoon, John

      Verney, F. W.

      Gill, A. H.

      Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Glover, Thomas

      Nolan, Joseph

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

      O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

      Halpin, J.

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

      Hayden, John Patrick

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      O'Grady, J.

      Hogan, Michael

      O'Malley, William

      Hudson, Walter

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      NOES.

      Agnew, George William

      Evans, Sir Samuel T.

      Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

      Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

      Everett, R. Lacey

      Pollard, Dr.

      Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

      Fenwick, Charles

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh. Central

      Armstrong, W. C. (Heaton)

      Ferens, T. R.

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

      Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

      Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

      Radford, G. H.

      Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Raphael, Herbert H.

      Barker, John

      Gooch, George Peabody

      Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

      Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

      Grant, Corrie

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

      Barnard, E. B.

      Gulland, John W.

      Rees, J. D.

      Barnes, G. N.

      Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

      Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

      Barran, Rowland Hirst

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

      Ridsdale, E. A.

      Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

      Henry, Charles S.

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Beale, W. P.

      Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

      Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

      Beauchamp, E.

      Higham, John Sharp

      Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

      Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

      Hobart, Sir Robert

      Robinson, S.

      Bell, Richard

      Holt, Richard Durning

      Robson, Sir William Snowdon

      Bellairs, Carlyon

      Horniman, Emslie John

      Rogers, F. E. Newman

      Bennett, E. N.

      Horridge, Thomas Gardner

      Rose, Charles Day

      Branch, James

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Scot, A H (Ashton under Lyne

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Hyde, Clarendon

      Sears, J. E.

      Brodie, H. C.

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      Seely, Colonel

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

      Jardine, Sir J.

      Shackleton, David James

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

      Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

      Kekewich, Sir George

      Silcock, Thomas Ball

      Buxton, Rt. Hn. Syndey Charles

      Kincaid-Smith, Captain

      Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

      Byles, William Pollard

      King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

      Soares, Ernest J.

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Laidlaw, Robert

      Spicer, Sir Albert

      Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

      Layland-Barratt, Francis

      Stanley, Hn. A Lyulph (Chesh.)

      Cleland, J. W.

      Lehmann, R. C.

      Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

      Clough, William

      Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

      Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

      Cobbold, Felix Thornley

      Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

      Thomas, Sir A (Glamorgan, E.)

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Lough, Thomas

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

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

      Lupton, Arnold

      Vivian, Henry

      Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

      Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

      Walker, H. De H. (Leicester)

      Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

      Macnamara, Dr Thomas J.

      Walters, John Tudor

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

      M'Callum, John M.

      Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

      Cory, Sir Clifford John

      M'Crae, George

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

      M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

      Watt, Henry A.

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth

      M'Micking, Major G.

      White, Luke (York, E. R.)

      Crossley, William J.

      Maddison, Frederick

      Whitehead, Rowland.

      Davies David (Montgomery Co.

      Massie, J.

      Wiles, Thomas

      Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

      Menzies, Walter

      Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

      Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

      Micklem, Nathaniel

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

      Duckworth, James

      Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

      Wood, T. M'Kinnon

      Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

      Nicholls, George

      Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

      Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster)

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

      Erskine, David C.

      Nussey, Thomas Willans

      Essex, R. W.

      Nuttall, Harry

      Esslemont, George Birnie

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

      Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(Mr. Joseph Pease.)—put, and agreed to.

      CLASS IV.
      3. £6,000 (Supplementary), Board of Education.
      *SIR PHILIP MAGNUSsaid that before this Vote was passed there were one or two points on which he wished some information. After the somewhat dramatic discussion on the last Vote he was disinclined to detain the Committee for more than a few minutes. This was the first time a Vote on account of what was called the
      1172
      Imperial College of Science and Technology had been asked for. Very great interest had been taken in the foundation of this College because for a long time it had been felt that we in this country were very far behind other nations—especially Germany and America—in the facilities which were provided for the promotion of higher technical instruction. The Vote asked for was £6,000, but that was only part of the sum of £20,000 a year which was to be allocated by the Board of Education for the maintenance of the College. He would like to know how that sum of £6,000 had been arrived at as a first instalment.

      1173
      But there was another question of greater importance than that. He would like some information as to how much of the total grant of £20,000 a year which was promised for the College was in excess of the cost and maintenance of the Royal College of Science and the Royal School of Mines which since 1st January had been taken over by the Imperial College of Science and Technology with which they were to be incorporated. According to the Estimates of last year the administration by the Board of Education of the Royal College of Science cost, including salaries and wages, £15,762, and laboratory expenses, £3,750; or a total of £19,512. Now, that sum did not include, so far as he could make out, the sum of £900, which was the cost of heating and lighting the Royal College of Science, so that the total cost amounted to £20,412. It was true that in this Estimate was included £1,000 for the maintenance of the new building recently erected in Imperial Institute Road, a sum which he believed was far less than the building would cost to maintain. But, against this, he found that there was in the year preceding the sum of £4,450 as against £3,750 for laboratory expenses upon last year's Estimates. It would appear, therefore, that the Government, in undertaking to give £20,000 a year to the new Imperial College, had made on the whole rather a good bargain, because the expense of maintenance of the two institutions which they had taken over and incorporated was really less than the College of Science and the School of Mines originally cost. It was quite certain that a much larger sum than this must be placed at the disposal of the governing body if the new college was to fulfil the important objects which were set forth in Lord Rosebery's letter in 1902, and to give that aid to British industry which it was anticipated it would give. He saw that it was stated in the charter of incorporation of the new college that divers persons were prepared to make munificent contributions towards the establishment and support of this Imperial institution. He would like to know the amount of those contributions and what contributions had been promised since the
      1174
      Report of the Departmental Committee of which he was a member had been issued two years since. It was also said in the charter that the Royal Commissioners of 1851 were prepared to appropriate a certain portion of their estate for the erection of new departments, and new buildings, and he would be glad to know whether, in the opinion of the Parliamentary Secretary, the funds at the disposal of the governng body were adequate for the erection of those departments on the appropriated sites and also for the remuneration of the professors, assistants, and lecturers, who would be required to give instruction. Unfortunately, it too often happened in this country that money was spent in bricks and mortar which should be paid in teachers' salaries, and that expensive buildings were erected which were imperfectly equipped. It was necessary that he should ask for this information at the present time, because he was sorry to say it appeared doubtful whether the London County Council would now grant the whole of the £20,000 towards the maintenance of the Imperial College which had been conditionally promised; and it was quite certain that unless the college was adequately endowed it would be unable to fulfil the great expectations which had been raised with regard to it. We in this country failed to realise the large sums of money which were required for higher technical instruction. In the United States that necessity was far better recognised, as was shown by the fact that between 1890 and 1901 no less a sum than £23,000,000 was subscribed from various sources for this express purpose. The future of this Imperial College intimately concerned the University of London with which he was connected. In the Report of the Departmental Committee a recommendation was made as to the appointment of a Royal Commission to consider what changes might be made in the character and constitution of the University of London, with a view to the amalgamation of the Imperial College with the University. It was an urgent matter for the University to know what their relations would be with the Imperial College, because if they were under the apprehension of a Royal Commission being appointed, they were prevented

      1175
      from entering upon many spheres of activity and undertaking various departments of work upon which they would enter if they knew that their position was absolutely settled. Was it the intention of the Government to appoint that Royal Commission, and if so, would they give some approximate date as to when they would do so?
      THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. LOUGH,)said that when the charter was granted to the College it was arranged that £20,000 a year was to be given to it practically out of the funds of the Board of Education. The bargain was made by the late Government, of which the hon. Baronet was a supporter. There were other advantages which the Imperial College would obtain besides the grant of £20,000. It would receive the fees which were paid by students, which came to a considerable amount every year, and which had appeared in their estimates as an appropriation in aid. This would be a considerable advantage to the College. Then the Government had certain students of its own who, according to the arrangement, would now become of advantage to the Imperial College, as the Board would for the future have to pay the fees of those students to the Governing Body. This would make a considerable difference in favour of the College, and make the bargain a good one. The Government were very glad to carry out the arrangement, all the more because it was the policy of their predecessors. He had every reason to believe that the main part of the funds promised would be forthcoming. He would also remind the hon. Member that there would be a more suitable opportunity for discussing this question when the grant-in-aid came up. He had been asked if any funds were available for the putting up of buildings. He might say that he believed that the College was going steadily on with its work, and there was not the slightest apprehension that it would not be able to discharge its function. With regard to the other grants which had been alluded to the Government was bound by the arrangements made by their predecessors.
      *SIR W. J. COLLINSsaid that with regard to what had been said about the University of London, and the Imperial College of Science the uncertainty as to the future relations was embarrassing and disconcerting. As Vice Chancellor of the University of London he sincerely trusted that the Board of Education would at an early period be able to tell them something as to what the policy of the Board was going to be in regard to this question. The Departmental Committee, upon whose Report the Charter was given, was divided as to whether the College should be an independent institution or whether it should be incorporated in the present University. It was necessary in the interests of higher education that an early decision should be arrived at as to what steps should be taken to determine the relationship of the Imperial College to the University.
      Vote agreed to.
      Resolutions to be reported this day.
      Committee to sit again this day.

  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): In asking leave to introduce this Bill I quite agree with my right hon. friend opposite that it is reasonable to ask that I should make some statement. I agree that the Bill is of very great importance, that it was mentioned in the King's Speech and that, as a matter of fact, it was introduced last year without any statement on my part. But I do not think it will be necessary even to take advantage of the limited opportunities which the Standing Order puts at my disposal, as the Bill was actually in the possession of hon. Members last year, and I think it will be sufficient if I explain to the House the operation of the first clause, which contains the operative provisions to secure an eight hours day for miners. The effect of the clause is as follows: In each colliery the inspector has to approve the time reasonably required for the purpose of lowering and raising the men. Let us assume that the time fixed at a particular colliery is half an hour. Then let us assume that the men start work at 6 a.m. They would have to be all down by 6.30 a.m. Eight hours is the time prescribed by the Bill for the men to be underground. It therefore follows that the first man must be above ground at 2 p.m., and the last man up must be above ground at 2.30 p.m. If the men ascend in the precise order of their descent it follows that each man would actually be underground, bank to bank, for eight hours. But it is quite obvious that it would be impossible to secure the ascent in the same order as the descent, and therefore we get not an actual eight hours for each man, but an average of
  1052
  eight hours for each man below ground. It works out in this way. If a man is first down and first up he will be below ground for eight hours. If he is first down and last up he will be below ground for eight and a half hours. If he is last down and first up he will be below ground for seven and a half hours, so that it is obvious the average time below ground for each man under the Bill as it stands will be eight hours bank to bank. That is really the proposal which we secure by the provisions in the first clause. The important clauses which allow overtime of one hour per day on sixty days in the year, and which allows the Government by Order in Council to suspend the operation of the Act in case of grave emergency are reproduced in this Bill as well as other clauses dealing with more detailed parts of the Bill which were in the Bill of last year. The Bill, I admit, is one of great importance in its bearing on the coal industry. It is designed to limit to a reasonable extent the dark hours of work of miners under ground. It will be and it must be closely scrutinised in its passage through Parliament in its relations to the commercial and domestic interests of the users of coal, both large and small. The Bill has been the subject for many years past of much discussion and much contention; but those who have differed strongly are not now far apart, and I am sanguine enough to hope and to believe that a satisfactory basis of agreement without disadvantage to the consumers will be found in this Bill, to the lasting benefit of the great population of miners in this country.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Coal Mines Regulation

  1053
  Acts, 1887 to 1905, for the purpose of limiting hours of work below ground."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid he desired to raise a voice against the introduction of this Bill, though in view of the fact that it had been discussed on many occasions, he did not desire to divide the House against it. He wished, however, to call attention to the rather remarkable manner in which the Bill had been introduced. On Tuesday they were told by the Home Secretary that it was to be handed in practically without explanation, but although they had had an explanation, no doubt due to the Question of his right hon. friend, it was rather remarkable that the Government assumed this session to have an infallibility with respect to the drafting of their Bills which no other Government had ever assumed to possess before. This was the third Bill they had had handed in in identical terms with this, and it certainly seemed rather remarkable that a Bill of this importance dealing for the first time with the limitation of adult male labour, should be on two occasions handed in without a word of explanation, and it was also somewhat remarkable that the Home Secretary, after having had the advantage of discussing the whole of the clauses of the Bill with all the parties interested, yet thought his own infallibility was better than the opinions of anybody else, and that no words should be altered in the Bill, even after all the representations which had been made to him. Although this Bill, in a sense, had been before the House on many occasions yet they must recollect that discussions on these private Members' Bills always assumed a somewhat unreal effect, even though they were pursued to the division lobby, and even to further stages, because they were a duel always between two sections of the very persons interested; and whilst in the opinion of many the most powerful speeches had come from those who represented miners against this legislation, yet as long as the important body which those Members represented were absolutely against the principle of the Bill, everybody regarded it as a somewhat academic debate, and realised that the Bill would never pass
  1054
  into law in the shape in which it was presented. They had now a Bill which was different from any they had ever had as a private Member's Bill, one which was said to be the result of a Committee instituted by this Government. The House had legislated frequently in connection with hours of labour, but it had always legislated in order to protect the weak or the young or those who were unable to protect themselves. The miners' interest was powerful. It was the best organised form of labour. If hours of labour were to be limited, and they were to interest themselves in adult labour, he thought it would be better for the House to turn its attention to such discussions as they might have on the next day rather than deal with those who had by their action already limited hours of labour themselves, and who were perfectly capable of doing so now. This Bill did nothing in the way of meeting the varying circumstances which the condition of the country showed were necessary in connection with this industry. In some parts of the country a limit had been attained far below that mentioned in this Bill. In other parts of the country they were told by the Committee—the Forest of Dean and South Staffordshire—it would be almost impossible to carry out the provisions of the Bill. If he thought the Bill was going to do anything or that there was any hope that it would materially help miners either in connection with their health or for the avoidance of accident, he certainly would be the last to do anything to oppose it, because he had been too much connected with miners and appreciated them too much to take any action of that sort. The Committee had entirely dealt with the question of health, and had given grand testimony to the efforts that had been made to improve the salubrity of mines, and so far as accidents were concerned they had been also informed that there was no evidence to connect accidents with the hours of the day or the longer work. They might therefore put aside questions of health or accident and deal with the matter simply as a question of the limitation of labour. This was the first attempt to limit adult labour, and it would have

  1055
  a great effect upon the commercial interests of the country. From what they had seen in the last few months the miners were perfectly able to obtain advance after advance in wages, and had the same interest been taken in the hours of labour as in an advance of wages they could have obtained it by voluntary action. It was desirable that a voice should be raised against this novel legislation which he believed was not required and which he believed would be a great burden to many portions of the community.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary Gladstone and Mr. Herbert Samuel.

  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  "To amend the Coal Mines Regulation Acts, 1887 to 1905, for the purpose of limiting hours of work below ground," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 110.]

  SUPPLY [10TH FEBRUARY] REPORT.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question proposed [11th February], "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the First Resolution," That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for additional Expenditure in respect of the following Army services viz.:—
  Vote 5. Volunteer Corps, Pay, Allowances, etc.—

  £

  E. (a) Grants for the Extinction of Debts

  350,000

  E. (b) Expenses of County Associations

  8,000

  358,000

  Less Surpluses on other Votes

  357,900

  100' "

  Question again proposed.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he was yet in a position to make any statement as to whether the County Associations under the Territorial Army scheme would receive any grants in excess of those which had been already promised? There had been various rumours, but not one word had been heard from an official source, that it was probable that this grant might be increased, largely owing to the representations made in both Houses of Parliament, and from various parts of the country. If the hon. Gentleman was able to give them any information upon that subject, he (Mr. Cavendish) was quite certain that he would do a very considerable amount towards assisting and helping on the formation of these Associations through the country. The second point to which he wished to draw attention was one of which he had a somewhat peculiar knowledge, because he had the privilege and honour of being chairman of one of the County Associations, and he felt in a somewhat difficult position in regard to it. He would only take what had happened that day. That evening he received a large batch of correspondence with "urgent and confidential" marked on it, and he found it was entirely confined to military details, the questions in regard to which could only be answered by the commanding officers of the regiments and their adjutants, after consulting the necessary books. Yet they were requested to send in the answers, if possible, not later than Saturday next. It was perfectly obvious that, with the regiments scattered over a large area, it was quite impossible, with the immense amount of information which would have to be collected, for him to be able to forward the information, with the best will in the world. He had taken steps already, and luckily there was to be a meeting on the following day of the commanding officers of the three units in the county for which he was responsible, and whether it
  1178
  was prejudicial to the word "confidential" or not, he had placed the papers before them, and he hoped they would be able to furnish him with some answer. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if it would not be possible to take the County Associations a little more into the confidence of the Government? They had had voluminous papers sent them, dealing with an immense mass of details. But he had only been able to obtain one or two copies of these, and the matters referred to therein required most careful working out. They all wished to give all the information they could, and to assist the movement, but these matters needed most careful investigation on the part of the military officers responsible. It would assist the formation of the Associations to a very considerable extent if they could have more than one or two copies. The only other point was a matter which, he thought, had been already very clearly brought to the attention of the War Office, viz., the form of attestation. At one o'clock in the morning he did not think it was necessary for him to deal with it at any considerable length, or even make more than a passing reference to it. Could the hon. Gentleman give the House any further information on that point. Was it to be left in its existing form; was any change contemplated? He certainly did not wish now to criticise it; criticism had already been made elsewhere and in the Press. There was a great deal in that criticism which he supported, and he felt sure it would be greatly to the interest, both of the House and of the country, if the hon. Gentleman could give them the desired information.
  VISCOUNT VALENTIAasked a question with reference to the pay given to the cavalry soldier of the Territorial Force. He reminded the House that within the last two or three days he had asked a Question of the Secretary of State for War as to whether compensation would be given in the case of the loss of or damage to a soldier's hired horse during

  1179
  permanent duty? The answer he got was that no compensation would be paid by the Government in respect of loss or damage to horses used by the Territorial Army. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that a grant of £5 for fifteen days made to the County Associations (as against £5 for sixteen days hitherto paid) would enable the Association to take any steps (such as insurance) necessary to provide against damage or loss to hired horses. In the case of officers or men riding their own horses, it was provided that the £5 should be paid over to the officer or man on the same terms as those on which the Association received it. When the Territorial Army Bill was under discussion in that House, it was stated by the Secretary of State for War, by the Financial Secretary, and by the hon. Member for the Richmond Division of Yorkshire, that the £5 horse allowance granted to the Imperial yeoman was a part of his pay. Now he saw that the right hon. Gentleman said that the £5 was to be paid to the Association for the general purposes of the Association, not to the man as part of his pay. Thus there would be an appreciable difference between the pay of the Imperial yeoman and that of the cavalry soldier of the Territorial Force. It seemed to him that it was an unheard of way of reducing the pay, and it certainly was not understood by the House to be so stated by the Secretary of State for War, and the other two hon. Members to whom he had referred, who were his coadjutors during the time the Bill was under discussion. Was it the case that this reduction of pay was to be added to the other reduction of pay, which would fall on the Imperial yeoman who enlisted in the Territorial Force? His pay hitherto had been 5s. 6d. a day; it would now be reduced to 2s. 8d. a day. If this sum, which had been looked upon as horse allowance, in addition to part of his pay, was to be reduced, he thought it would be another deterrent
  1180
  to the yeoman taking on with the Territorial Force. He would remind the hon. Gentleman that no chance should be thrown away of endeavouring to persuade the Imperial yeoman to join the Territorial Force. They were not overburdened with men, and no effort should be spared to add to the Territorial Force; but if this reduction of pay took place, it would discourage the men. The reduction was quite unprecedented, and up to that time there had never been a case in which there had been a reduction in the pay in the units of the British Army. The yeoman would resent this reduction and it would very naturally occur to him that if he was worth 5s. 6d. this year, it was very hard that he should be worth only 2s. 8d. next year.
  *MR. COURTHOPEwished to add one word to what his right hon. friend had said about the attestation form, and he did so, not with the slightest desire to go into any detail, as the House was familiar with the matter, but because he did not think His Majesty's Government realised how serious was the question involved. Officers in the existing Volunteer Force were required to ascertain whether their men would continue to serve, and whether they would join the Territorial Force. In his own case he was supposed to make a Return on March 6th, and the men very naturally wanted to know the conditions of service and the form of oath they would be required to take. There was no time to be lost. The Government had said they were establishing a Committee to consider the form of attestation. He had asked when the Committee would be set up, but owing to the regrettable absence of the Secretary of State for War, the Question could not be answered, and he was requested to put it again next week. There was one week of the fortnight gone. Then, he supposed, the Committee would sit for some weeks and then another attestation form would be

  1181
  drawn up. The case was much too urgent to be delayed. Why could not the Government draw up a form of attestation in an hour with the bare minimum of the questions which it was absolutely necessary to ask? Not only was this difficulty arising with the Volunteers now serving, but this was the time of year when most of the best recruiting was done. They got their recruits in from the middle of January to the middle of March. This matter was being talked about all over the place, and recruits would not take the form of oath which the new attestation form required. They were not going, suddenly and contrary to all their previous expectations, to come in and take an oath which would compel them to serve anywhere, when required; they would not do it. He would go so far as to say that very few of the Volunteer officers who were at present serving would submit that attestation form to their men. He would not, for one, and the whole territorial scheme would fall to pieces unless this was dealt with in the course of the next few days. The matter was one of extreme urgency, and for the War Office to waste weeks on a matter of this kind, which the Secretary of State for War could draw up in a few minutes himself was the height of folly. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman representing the War Office that evening would be able to give them some satisfactory assurance that they who wished to do their best, as everyone did, to bring recruits in and to pursuade men, who were good Volunteers now, to go on and form the new Territorial Force, might have a chance of meeting with some success, and that the territorial scheme might have some prospect of success, instead of a certainty of failure.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BUCHANAN,)apologised for the absence of the Secretary of State for War, owing to
  1182
  his being on the sick list. Dealing with the matter of the attestation form he said that the Secretary of State informed the House on Monday that the Committee was immediately to come together, in order to consider this subject, and frame a form of oath on the best and most experienced advice competent to deal with the subject. He could assure the House that there would be no delay whatever in the matter, and as had been already promised it would be speedily dealt with. He did not think he could add anything in answer to the Question, beyond that the matter was receiving the very careful consideration of the authorities of the War Office and the Secretary of State, who, he was sure, would be able to find a satisfactory solution. With regard to the Question of the noble Lord, as to the horse allowance, the proposal was that the allowance of £5 per horse was to be paid over to the Association, who were to hire the horses. The man who brought his own horse was to get the £5 paid over to him, and out of that, he thought, he was expected to find insurance for his horse. So far, he understood it to be said that he was in a worse position than before. He was sorry the noble Lord had not given him some intimation of his intention to bring this question forward, so that he could have inquired into the matter.
  VISCOUNT VALENTIAsaid his point was that the £5 per horse was to be paid now to the Association, whereas it used to be paid to the man as part of his pay.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid that the noble Lord was much more intimately acquainted with the Yeomanry than he was, but he believed the £5 was to be paid over to the Associations, as stated. With regard to the document marked "Urgent and confidential," referred to by the right hon. Member for West Derbyshire, he explained that the War Office found it necessary in respect to the many details which had to be settled,

  1183
  to send out, in confidence, what were the draft proposals, but which were not absolutely settled, to the chairmen of the Associations, asking them in confidence for their opinions. He could assure the House that within the next week, or very shortly, he hoped to be able to issue to all the Associations—in full detail, and no longer as confidential documents—the detailed memoranda, upon the various points relating to financial regulations. With regard to the question which had been constantly pressed on them, as to the insufficiency of the sum proposed to be devoted for establishment charges, they had considered the matter very seriously in conjunction with those best qualified to know. They had come to the conclusion that they had made out, to a certain degree, their case, and the Government were prepared to increase the amount for the establishment charges which they proposed to give to the Associations. He did not feel entitled at that moment to name the figure, but it was a substantial increase. Although they had the consent of the Treasury, they had not the written consent, and therefore he thought it would not be proper at that moment to go into further details; but he was perfectly certain that in substance, at any rate, it would be in accordance with the amount proposed to them by the various Associations of the country.
  COLONEL SEELYsaid he did not know that that question would have been raised that evening; but as that was the last opportunity they would have to ask the War Office to remedy what he thought was a very grave mistake, and which really meant in his judgment a breach of faith with that House, he would like to make a few remarks. They found now that in the case of the Yeomanry, the insurance for the horses would have to be paid by the men themselves. There had been a reduction in the pay of the Yeomanry—a
  1184
  thing, they were told, which had never happened in the last 300 years. With very great difficulty those belonging to these forces had got their men to continue their services, and to take part in this great patriotic movement. They had believed that their pay would be continued. They had got them with very great difficulty, and row came this further reduction of pay, which had never been mentioned before, and which no one dreamt of when the Bill was passed. It was resented by the men, and it was resented in all quarters of that House, as a little bit of petty cheeseparing, which might ruin the cavalry of the Territorial Force. There was a great advantage in the Government taking the insurance, because the further they spread their risk, the less the cost would be. To show how much that was the case, instructions had been sent in some counties to the General Officers Commanding, that the insurance should be spread over the whole county, thus reducing the cost. But how much better it would be to spread it all over the country! He appealed for the last time and with confidence to the hon. Member representing the War Office, not on the ground of economy—though that was strong—but on the ground of keeping faith with a body of men endeavouring to serve the State to the best of their ability. They had reduced their pay far more than they had ever reduced the pay of any other men who served their country; and now, when Parliament was not sitting, they had insisted on their making up the insurance themselves. He begged the Government to withdraw this Order.
  VISCOUNT MORPETHcongratulated the hon. Gentleman on the fact that the amount of the establishment charges was to be increased, because it was universally thought amongst Volunteer officers that the Government had offered a very inadequate sum to carry on the administrative

  1185
  work of the battalions. When were they to have the amended figures? It was very urgent that they should have them at once. The Act came, into operation on the 31st of March, and there they were, almost at the end of February, past the eleventh hour, unable to secure secretaries for the County Associations, because they did not know how much they would be able to pay them. The whole success of the scheme, as regarded the County Associations, depended on the man who was to be the secretary. If it were to be a case of an inadequate pittance, to be paid to some retired officer, the County Association would be at a disadvantage, and they could not insist on getting the right man. If the figures were not issued as rapidly as possible, the appointments would be left over to the last minute and the result would be failure; the War Office would then say that it was the fault of the County Associations, because they had mismanaged and muddled the thing, and that it was not their own fault in waiting till the last minute to tell the County Associations what they intended to do.
  COLONEL HERBERTsaid he had a clear recollection of the discussion which took place both in and outside of that House last year, and he could not conceive what had entered into the brains of any of the officials of the War Office this year, that at this late hour they should suddenly spring this cheese-paring economy upon them. He could assure the hon. Member that there was nothing more calculated to destroy what little enthusiasm would have been raised in the country, than this sort of regulation. In Wales also they had their grievances, but he would
  1186
  spare the House at that late hour. They were to have had the honour of a conference with the Secretary of State that day, but it had had to be postponed and he hoped they might have it in a very short time. Red-tapeism had threatened to strangle the enthusiasm that was rising in the country, and he could assure the hon. Member that if this conduct continued it would have a most serious effect upon the possible success of the scheme for which all of them, on both sides of the House, wished to do their best.
  MR. CARLILEasked whether some arrangement could not be made for retaining the non-commissioned officers in some of the battalions, half of which he understood were to be disbanded. He had a case before him in connection with the 1st Lanarkshire Rifle Volunteers. That magnificent battalion had at present sixteen companies, and eight of those companies were to disappear under the proposal of the Secretary of State for War. Some 100 non-commissioned officers, in the half of that battalion which was to be disbanded, would be turned adrift. They had, many of them, been a number of years in that or other battalions; some of them had as much as nineteen years service, and had been hoping that they would have an opportunity of obtaining the Volunteer Decoration Now, through no fault of their own, these non-commissioned officers—reliable and excellent Volunteers as they were—were to be turned adrift, and would lose an opportunity of gaming this decoration, or of continuing to serve their King and country. It seemed a very unnecessary thing that this

  1187
  should be allowed to happen. He could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman could not retain the noncommissioned officers upon the strength of the remaining companies, or make some other arrangements by which their services might be retained for the country. The men felt the humiliation very strongly, and he thought the least that could be done under the circumstances, if it were really necessary to cut down these excellent battalion, was that the services of the non-commissioned officers should' be in some way or other retained for the benefit of the country. It was a deplorable thing that those who were willing to serve should be precluded from the opportunity of doing so, while at the same time they had any quantity of people in this country who would not do an hour's work, or raise a finger to put themselves to any inconvenience in order to qualify themselves for any evil day which might come upon them. It seemed part of this policy of cheese-paring to which he referred a few days ago. Surely these men could be kept on the strength of the other battalions, and not be exposed to the humiliation of being shot out of the service. He hoped and trusted the hon. Gentleman in charge of these Estimates might have something to say to them about this matter, so that they might be reassured. He was sure the country as a whole would not endorse with any satisfaction a policy which made it impossible for these men to continue to serve with their colours.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid he could reassure the hon. Member that non commissioned officers would be retained as supernumeraries. With regard to the question raised about the Yeomanry,
  1188
  he would communicate to the Secretary of State the views that had been expressed that night, and doubtless he would deal with the matter. With regard to the Question of the noble Lord opposite, he hoped the figures would be out at a very early date indeed. He had given the reasons why he could not name them at this moment, but the increase was substantial, and he thought it would be satisfactory.
  *MR. REESasked the hon. Member to call the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the question of the separation allowance for privates. He was perfectly well aware that every hon. Member was pressing the War Office for further expenditure on the Army, whilst the House collectively pressed for a reduction of the expenditure. As there was in his own constituency a good deal of feeling on this point, he hoped, however, that the Financial Secretary would' bring it before the Secretary of State.
  MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS: Will what was said by the, hon. Gentleman as to the retention of non-commissioned officers as supernumeraries apply to the non-commissioned officers of the Militia battalion?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I cannot answer that Question now.

  SUPPLY [10TH FEBRUARY] REPORT.
    ADJOURNMENT.
    Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before Two o'clock.