Commons Sitting of 30 July 1908

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS
Dover Graving Docks Bill.—Lords' Amendments, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 23rd July, considered, and agreed to.
Lower Thames (Grays) Dock Bill (by Order).—Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill; Local Government Provisional
1688
Orders (No. 10) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 11) Bill.—Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Edinburgh and District Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].—Considered; read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:—Isle of Man (Customs Duties) Bill; Seed Potatoes and Seed Oats Supply (Ireland) Bill; Costs in Criminal Cases Bill; University of Durham Bill; Finance Bill; Naval Marriages Bill; Naval Lands (Volunteers) Bill; Married Women's Property Bill; Grand Jury (Ireland) Act (1836) Amendment Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 8) Bill; Marriages Provisional Order Bill; Usk Fisheries Provisional Order Confirmation Bill; Wye Fisheries Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.
Whale Fisheries (Ireland) Bill, with an Amendment.
Polling Districts and Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill; Telegraph (Construction) Bill; Bee Pest (Ireland) Bill; Old-Age Pensions Bill; Irish Universities Bill, with Amendments.
Amendment to:—Agricultural Holdings Bill [Lords]; Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Bill [Lords]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords].
Amendments to:—Registration Bill [Lords]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [Lords]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords]; Thames River Steamboat Service Act (1904) Amendment Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

PETITIONS

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against: From Alton and other places; and East Somerset; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour: From Aberkenfig; Caeran; Cluny; Colwyn Bay (three); Cwmfellin; Ifton Heath; Liverpool; Long Sutton; Maesteg; Nantyffyllon; and Street; to lie upon the Table.

  POOR LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Glenmuick, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  Petition from Wandsworth Common, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS (ENGLAND).
  Copy presented, of the Annual Local Taxation Returns for 1905–6, Parts V.-VIII. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 276.]
  PRISONS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Thirtieth Report of the General Prisons Board (Ireland) for 1907–8, with an Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  STRIKES AND LOCK-OUTS.
  Copy presented, of Report on Strikes and Lock-outs of 1907, and on Conciliation and Arbitration Boards [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF TRADE (LABOUR DEPARTMENT) (CHANGES IN WAGES, ETC.).
  Copy presented, of Report on changes in Rates of Wages and Hours of Labour in the United Kingdom in 1907, with comparative Statistics for 1898–1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVIGATION AND SHIPPING.
  Copy presented, of Annual Statement of Navigation and Shipping of the United Kingdom for the year 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAY RETURNS.
  Copy presented, of Returns of the Capital, Traffic Receipts, and Working Expenditure of the Railway Companies of the United Kingdom for the year 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  STATISTICAL ABSTRACT (UNITED KINGDOM).
  Copy presented, of Statistical Abstract for the United Kingdom, in each of the last fifteen years, from 1893 to 1907. Fifty-fifth number [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR).
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade of their Proceedings under the Railway Regulation Act, 1893, during the year ended 27th July, 1908 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 278.]
  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACTS, 1888 AND 1894.
  Copy presented, of Tenth Report by the Board of Trade of Proceedings under Section 31 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, including Proceedings upon Complaints made under Section 1 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 279.]
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS, 1894 TO 1906 (DISPENSING POWERS).
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade of the cases in which they have exercised their powers under Section 78 of the Merchant Act, 1906, during the year ended 31st May, 1908 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 280.]
  NAVY (EXCEPTIONS TO KING'S REGULATIONS).
  Copy presented, of List of Exceptions to the King's Regulations as to Pay, Non-effective Pay, and Allowances during the year 1907–8 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  FLEETS (GREAT BRITAIN AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 28th April; Sir Charles Dilke]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 277.]
  NAVAL EXPENDITURE (PRINCIPAL NAVAL POWERS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 7th May; Mr. Thomasson]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 281.]
  NAVAL CASUALTIES.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 19th May; Mr. Bowles]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 282.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2075 to 4082 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Consultative Committee upon the School Attendance of Children below the Age of Five [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  Copy presented, of Report of the Commissioners upon the duties of the Metropolitan Police. Vols. II. and III. Minutes of Evidence, with Appendices and Index [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COUNTY COURTS (PLAINTS AND SITTINGS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 29th July; Mr. Herbert Samuel]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 283.]
  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) BILL, 1908.
  Copy presented, of Table of Comparison between the Provisions of the Bill and existing Enactments [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAUPERS AND DEPENDANTS (SCOTLAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 17th July, 1907; Mr. Sinclair]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 284.]
  GUARANTEED 2¾ PER CENT. STOCK.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 24th July; Mr. John Roche]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.[No. 285.]
  CIVIL SERVANTS (RETIREMENT AT THE AGE OF SIXTY-FIVE).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 29th July; Mr. Hobhouse]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 286.]
  FORESHORES.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 29th July, 1908, directing the application of moneys received by the Board of Trade in the year ended 31st March, 1908, in respect of the rights and interests of the Crown in the Foreshores of the United Kingdom [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Inquiry into Charities (County of Devon).—Further Return relative thereto [ordered 26th July 1905; Mr. Griffith-Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 287.]
  MERCHANT SHIPPING, 1907.
  Copy ordered, "of Tables showing the Progress of Merchant Shipping in the United Kingdom and the principal Maritime Countries."—(Mr. Churchill.)
  IRON AND STEEL, 1907.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum and Statistical Tables showing the production and consumption of Iron Ore and Pig Iron, and the production of Steel, in the United Kingdom and the principal Foreign Countries in recent years, and the Imports and Exports of certain classes of Iron and Steel Manufactures (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 350, of Session 1907)."—(Mr. Churchill.)
  COAL TABLES, 1907.
  Copy ordered, "of Statistical Tables relating to the production, consumption, and imports and exports of Coal in the British Empire and the principal Foreign Countries in each year from 1885 to 1907, as far as the particulars can be stated, together with Statements showing the production of Lignite and Petroleum in the principal producing countries for a series of years (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 349, of Session 1907)."—(Mr. Churchill.)
  TEA AND COFFEE, 1908.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum and Statistical Tables showing the consumption of Tea and Coffee in the Principal Countries of Europe, the United States, and certain British Colonies; together with information relating to the principal sources of supply in recent years, so far as the particulars can be stated (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 304, of Session 1905)."—(Mr. Churchill.)
  PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES ACTS, 1879 AND 1884.
  Address for "Return showing the working of the Regulations made in 1886 for carrying out the Prosecution of Offences Acts, 1879 and 1884, with Statistics setting forth the number, nature, result, and cost of the proceedings instituted by the Director in accordance with those Regulations, from the 1st day of January, 1907, to the 31st day of December, 1907 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 230, of Session 1907)."—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
  NAVY AND ARMY (INQUIRIES).
  Return ordered, "giving in chronological order, according to the dates of publication of the Reports, a list of all Inquiries into Naval and Military affairs which have been held since the year 1800, the Reports of which have been published as Parliamentary Papers."—(Mr. Bellairs.)
  SCOTTISH LOCAL AUTHORITIES (DEPUTATION EXPENSES).
  Return ordered, "arranged according to Counties, of Expenses during each of the five years ending the 15th day of May, 1908, of Deputations to London in connection with (a) Public General Bills; (b) Private Bills or Provisional Orders; and (c) other purposes; incurred by the following bodies in Scotland (to be separately stated for each body), viz.: Town councils, county councils, district committees, district lunacy boards, parish councils, distress committees school boards, educational trusts, and water, gas, dock, harbour, or other commissioners or trustees liable to make Returns under the Local Taxation Returns (Scotland) Act, 1881."—(Mr. Pirie.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Irish Congestion Commission.
  DR. AMBROSE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the total cost of the recent Royal Commission on Congestion in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The cost of the Royal Commission on Congestion in Ireland., so far as it was borne on the Vote for Temporary Commissions, amounted to £9,465. In addition an expenditure estimated at £5,800 has been incurred in respect of stationery and printing.

  Crookenden and Casey Estates, Cavan.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether the Estates Commissioners have received a reply from the owners of the Crookenden and Casey Estates, County Cavan, to their formal offer for the purchase of this estate; and will he state the effect of the same, with the dates of the offer and reply.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners' offer to purchase the estate in question was dated the 7th instant. They have not yet received a reply to it. It would be contrary to their practice to make any statement as to the details of pending negotiations.

  Drumlinny Evicted Tenant.
  MR. LARDNER: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the case of Peter M'Guirk an evicted tenant reinstated on a farm in Drumlinny, County Monaghan, on the sale of the estate of Lord Rossmore, no advance appears to have been sanctioned; will he state when the tenant was put into possession of the farm; why no annuity has been collected from him, though his name is listed in the Return issued under the Evicted Tenants Act of tenants reinstated; and whether it is the intention of the Commissioners to ask this evicted tenant, who has no means whatever, to

  1695
  pay all the accrued interest since his reinstatement.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners cannot trace the name Peter M'Guirk, of Drumlinny, but one Peter M'Guirk has been reinstated in a holding on Lord Rossmore's estate in the townland of Effernagh, and the holding was vested in him as purchase on 1st June, 1906. He has paid the purchase instalments punctually.

  Grant to Reinstated Tenant at Effernagh.
  MR. LARDNER: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what decision the Estates Commissioners have arrived at in reference to the application of Peter M'Guirk, an evicted tenant, who was reinstated in his holding on the sale of the estate in County Monaghan, of Lord Rossmore, for a grant to enable him to begin farming again; and is he aware that at the time of the tenant's reinstatement the land was covered in furze, the fences broken down, and the houses in ruins, and that since the time when he was reinstated he has lived in an out-house without chimney or fireplace; and will he now have this case taken up and dealt with.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received from Peter M'Guirk, of Effernagh, an application for a grant, and the application is at present under their consideration.

  Port of London Bill.
  MR. W. PEARCE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what procedure the Government intend to follow with regard to the Port of London Bill after it has been reported by the Joint Committee.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Bill when reported by the Joint Committee will, I understand, be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and the subsequent procedure will follow the usual course in regard to Public Bills.

  Patent Acts, 1907.
  MR. CROYDON MARKS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether there is any
  1696
  intention on the part of His Majesty's Government to waive any condition as to compulsory working of patents in this country beyond that provided for in the Patents Act of 1907, whereby the patentee is afforded an opportunity of giving reasons for his failure to work before the patent is revoked by the Comptroller or the Court.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) No, Sir.

  Spitalfields Market.
  MR. B. S. STRAUS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received any recent Report from the police directing attention to the number of market carts standing in the vicinity of Spitalfields Market on market days; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any steps with a view to the removal of this inconvenience to the public.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have not received any recent Report from the police on this subject. The matter was considered by the Royal Commission on London Traffic, who reported that the Corporation of the City, on acquiring this market, would take steps to remove the grounds of complaint. As the Attorney-General stated yesterday, in a reply to a Question by Mr. Stuart Samuel, litigation respecting the purchase of the leasehold of the market by the Corporation is still proceeding, and the Corporation will do everything that is possible to expedite matters. The police have no power to act within the market limits.

  Council of Judges—Annual Report.
  MR. BERTRAM: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received the Annual Report of the Council of Judges of the Supreme Court in accordance with Section 75 of the Judicature Act, 1873, for the years 1907 and 1908, or either of such years; and if so, whether he can inform the House what proposals are contained in such Reports or Report to remedy the dislocation of the business of the King's Bench Division consequent upon the passing of the Criminal Appeal Act; and, in case no Report has been received

  1697
  in conformity with the statute, whether he will take such steps as may be necessary to procure it, and particularly in view of the fact that only three Reports were made between 1873 and 1906.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) No Report has been presented by the Council of Judges for 1907 and 1908, but I understand that a committee has been sitting during the last month and has made a Report, which will shortly be issued, dealing with the business of the King's Bench Division and other subjects.

  Ely Estate Evicted Tenants.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received and considered applications from Bernard M'Garrahan and William M'Cullagh, sons of evicted tenants on the Ely estate, County Fermanagh, to be restored to the holdings formerly held by their fathers, or to have new holdings allotted to them; and will their claims be considered in the division of the untenanted lands on the Ely estate in the course of the sale now pending.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received applications from Bernard M'Garrahan and William M'Cullagh, but, as the evictions in respect of which they claim reinstatement took place previous to 14th August, 1878, the applicants do not come within the provisions of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act of 1903.

  Open Air Meeting Prosecutions.
  MR. ROWLANDS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that three prosecutions have taken place recently at Dartford police court, under the circumstances that for over twenty years meetings and religious services have been periodically held in front of the Bull Hotel, Dartford, within the knowledge of the authorities; that on the 24th instant Ensign Roy of the Salvation Army was summoned for obstruction at this spot by holding a religious service, and was convicted and fined 20 s., or in the alternative,
  1698
  fourteen days imprisonment; and that the Salvation Army held another service on the same spot on Sunday last, and the same action has been followed by the authorities in the case of Mrs. Roy; and whether he will advise the extension of the clemency of the Crown by remitting the sentence.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I had not previously heard of the matter, but I will make inquiry.

  Deaths from Anæsthetics.
  MR. COOPER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the number of deaths from anæsthetics in England in each year ending 30th June from 1901 to 1908; whether the percentage of deaths to administrations has increased; whether the increase, if any, has been in private as well as in hospital practice; and whether he will consider the advisability of asking the Royal Society or the Royal College of Physicians to institute an inquiry into the cause or causes of the increase in the number of deaths, and advise him whether any rules are required regulating the conditions under which anæsthetics are given.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The number of deaths under anæsthetics administered for the purpose of operations which occurred in England and Wales in each year ending 31st December, from 1901 to 1906, is given in the Reports of the Registrar-General. The figures are: In 1901, 133; in 1902, 148; in 1903, 146; in 1904, 156; in 1905, 155; and in 1906, 183. I am unable to give the other information asked for; but the whole question is already receiving consideration by the Government in consultation with the General Medical Council.

  Motor Ambulances.
  MR. COOPER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the proposal made by the London County Council in its. General Powers Bill, 1906, to establish a system of motor ambulances to deal with street accidents in London, was opposed by the Corporation of the City of London, before a Committee of

  1699
  this House, in favour of horsed ambulances; whether he is aware that the Corporation of the City of London, have now adopted and are successfully working in the City a system of motor ambulances on the lines suggested by the London County Council for the whole of the county; and what are his reasons for opposing the extension of this system to the County of London.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The proposals made by the London County Council in their Bill of 1906 were opposed by Sir Ralph Littler on behalf of the Corporation of the City, but the ground of the opposition was only in so far as the County Council proposed to take powers in the City as well as in other parts of the Metropolis. The electric motor ambulance service in the City was inaugurated in 1907. I understand that up to the present only one ambulance has been started, but the service as at present working, gives, I believe, complete satisfaction. The reasons for opposing the proposals made by the London County Council in 1906 are given in the Home Office Report which was before the Committee of both Houses, The view taken in that Report was that it was a question whether any additional facilities required would not be more efficiently and economically provided by a development of the existing services, rather than by the establishment of a new public service acting independently of existing agencies. It was decided that the best course was to appoint a departmental committee to consider the whole question, and it is hoped that this committee will report in the autumn.

  Wheeled Litter Ambulances.
  MR. COOPER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department where the expenditure on the wheeled litter ambulances placed in the streets of London during the last two years by his authority is set out; whether he is aware that the London County Council submitted in its General Powers Bill of 1906 a proposal to establish a motor ambulance system for accidents for London, and that proposal received the unanimous support of this House; whether the clauses dealing with this proposal were struck out of the Bill in another place on his
  1700
  suggestion; whether the expenditure on wheeled litter ambulances was authorised by him after these clauses were struck out of this General Powers Bill; and whether he has power in any other county or town in England to charge the rate without the consent of the ratepayers and, if not, why is London the exception.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Particulars of the expenditure from the Metropolitan Police Fund in respect of wheeled litter ambulances are not shown separately in the accounts of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District. The London County Council's Bill of 1906 provided for general powers to establish an ambulance service, but their intention was only to provide a service of an experimental and limited character. The clauses dealing with the matter were thrown out by a Committee of the House of Lords after consideration of the Home Office Report on the Bill, and a Departmental Committee was shortly afterwards appointed to inquire into the whole question. Wheeled litters have been sanctioned since 1906, and others previously sanctioned have been placed out since that date, according as it has been found possible to meet existing needs. I have no similar powers elsewhere than in the Metropolitan Police District, the powers as regards the provision of litters in that district belonging to the Secretary of State as police authority for the Metropolis.

  Ridenham Village Green.
  MR. JOHN WARD: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board has made any representations or inquiries of the Andover Rural District Council relative to the recent enclosure of the village green at Ridenham; and whether he has any further information as to the steps being taken by the district council to protect public rights in this matter.
  (Sir Edward Strachey.) The Board are in communication with the Andover Rural District Council, and have been informed by them that their investigations into the matter are not yet completed. I shall be pleased to inform my hon. friend of the result of the inquiry.

  Fishery Authorities.
  MR. WILLIAMSON: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been drawn to the Addendum to the Report of the Committee on Fishery Investigations; whether the representatives of the Board signed an Addendum recommending the creation of one fishery authority for the whole of the United Kingdom and the abolition of the Scottish Fishery Board and the Irish Board of Fisheries; and whether the representative who signed the Addendum correctly represented the view of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries on this matter.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The reply to the first and second parts of the Question is in the affirmative. Mr. Rew in the Addendum to the Report expressed his personal opinion only. The Board themselves, as I have already stated, do not desire the creation of a single Board of Fisheries for the whole of the United Kingdom.

  Distemper in Dogs.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the committee appointed by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to inquire into the question of distemper in dogs have carried on or intend to carry on any experiments on dogs by inoculations or otherwise for the purpose of their inquiry; if so, where will such experiments be conducted, by whom and at whose expense, and how many dogs have up to now been used for this purpose, and with what results.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The experiments will be conducted on registered premises by members of the committee, who hold the necessary licence, and the expenses will be defrayed out of public subscriptions. Thirteen dogs have up to the present time been used for the purpose mentioned. It is too early to make any statement as to the results of the inquiry, but a full Report will be issued by the committee in due course.

  Old-Age Pension Regulations.
  MR. FELL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Regulations under the Old-Age Pensions Bill will be issued before the adjournment, or, if not, will they be circulated during the Recess.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I hope that the Regulations will be ready in the course of a few days. I propose that they should be presented to Parliament at the earliest possible moment.

  Volunteer Quartermaster-Sergeant.
  MR. GUY WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that certain Volunteer quarter-master-sergeants obtained their discharge from their old corps in order to take commissions as quartermasters in the new Territorial units, and that these commissions were refused them by the War Office because they were over forty years of age, whereas if they had remained as non-commissioned officers they could have served until fifty-five years of age; and whether he can see his way to alter this Regulation.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane) The War Office is aware of one case of a staff-sergeant (sergeant-major), which is being considered specially. It is not considered desirable to alter the Regulation referred to.

  War Office Uniform Contracts.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that khaki uniforms are being made in the homes of the poor in the East End of London; whether this is in conformity with the Fair Wages Resolution of this House; whether he can state who are the contractors; whether this domestic employment is a case of sub-contracting; whether he is aware that some of the contractors are working their employees seven days per week; and, if this is not sweating, what action he intends to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) If the hon. Member is referring to the making of uniforms for the Regular

  1703
  Forces, all home work is strictly forbidden by the contracts, and I have no reason to think that the rule is being broken. If the hon. Member will bring to my notice any specific case of alleged infringement of the rule or any case where employees are working seven days a week inquiry will at once be made and stringent action taken if the allegations are found to be justified. If the reference is to the making of uniforms for the Territorial Force, I can only refer the hon. Member to my Answer of the 28th instant.

  Woolwich Ammunition Stores.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the quantity of stores and ammunition available at Woolwich is insufficient for a week's normal supply; and, if so, whether he will cause an inquiry to be held to ascertain who is responsible for that state of things, and take steps to promptly remedy this shortage.
  To ask the Secretary of State for War what are the present stocks of small-arm and gun ammunition available for immediate use at Woolwich, and how the figures relating to such stocks compare with the corresponding figures for the year ending 31st July, 1907 and 1906 respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) May I reply to Questions No. 82 and 83 together? I can assure the hon. Member that the state of things which he suggests does not exist. I do not consider it advisable to publish the figures asked for, but I may say that the present stocks of gun and small-arm ammunition are in accordance with the scales laid down. Woolwich is, of course, only one of many places where these stocks are kept.

  Long Service Medals for Volunteer Officers.
  MR. FIENNES: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that non-commissioned officers and men of the Territorial Army obtain a long service medal, he will grant the same to the officers as a reward for long service in the Volunteer Forces.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The grant of a decoration for officers of the
  1704
  Territorial Force, corresponding to the Volunteer officers' decoration, is at present under consideration.

  Exchequer and Audit Department Staff.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the number of Exchequer and Audit Department officials who are likely to retire on pension before the end of the present year, and the approximate amount of pension to which each of them will be entitled.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) I am not prepared to make inquiry as to possible retirements in the Department. Information on both these points will be available in due course in the Estimate for Class 6, Vote 1, for 1909–10.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will give the dates on which the members of the promotion Committee in the Exchequer and Audit Department met in 1905, 1906, 1907, and 1908, the total membership of this committee, and the number present at each meeting.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) This Question relates to matters that, under Section 9 of 29 and 30 Vict., c. 39, are entirely within the discretion and authority of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and I have no power to interfere.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Conference on removal expenses of members of the Army Accounts Department and of holders of appointments under similar conditions under the Admiralty and Exchequer and Audit Department have been adopted by the latter Department; and, if not, will he explain why.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The recommendations are in force for removals, the cost of which falls on Imperial revenues. In the case of removals; the expenses of which are repaid by the Colonies, special rules have been laid down by the Colonial Office.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the

  1705
  amount realised for 1907–8 by the Exchequer and Audit Department from the sale of stamps attached in prepayment for carriage to official parcels of accounts received from the Crown Colonies and Protectorates.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) Nil.

  Colonial Audit Branch.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that three-fifths of the Old Colonial Audit Branch nominated officials passed no actual educational test examination on entry to the public service and possessed no academic qualifications of any kind he will explain how the Comptroller and Auditor-General satisfied himself as to the educational qualifications of these men; and why salaries, varying from £65 to £115 per annum in excess of those of their ex Second Division open-competition contemporaries and colleagues employed on the same duties, are now granted to such of these officials as return from unhealthy climates abroad.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) I have nothing to add to the previous replies in connection with these points.

  Cost of Birth Certificates.
  MR. WHITEHEAD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of reducing the cost of obtaining a copy of a certificate of birth to 1s. or a less sum in the case of any applicants for old-age pensions who may be required to produce such certificates.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The point is one which is receiving careful consideration in connection with the regulations under the Act. I hope that as a general rule it will be found to be practicable, by checking the statements of applicants against the records of the Registrar General to dispense with the necessity for the production of actual certificates by the applicants themselves.

  Mohill Seed Loan.
  MR. THOMAS F. SMYTH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received a copy of the resolution passed by the Mo-
  1706
  hill, County Leitrim, board of guardians at their meeting held on Thursday the 9th instant, with reference to extending the time for repayment of the seed loan to four years from two years as at present arranged; and, if so, will the said recommendation be carried out.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have received a copy of the Resolution referred to. A period of two years has in the past proved sufficient for the repayment of the cost of the seed, and I am not aware of any adequate reason for extending the time on the present occasion.

  Evicted Tenant on Lord Harlech's Estate.
  MR. THOMAS F. SMYTH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners' inspector has sent in his report with regard to the reinstatement of Mrs. Alice Reilly, Aughavas, County Leitrim, an evicted tenant on the estate of Lord Harlech.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have considered Alice Reilly's application, and, as they have not been able to arrange for her reinstatement in her former holding, they have placed her name on the list of persons suitable to be provided with a holding should untenanted land become available in the neighbourhood.

  Mong Evicted Tenant.
  MR. THOMAS F. SMYTH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners will reconsider their decision as regards the reinstatement of Michael Dunne, son of the late Thomas Dunne, an evicted tenant at Mong, Carrick-on-Shannon, County Leitrim, on the Marsham estate; and, in the event of his being unable to get the farm from which his father was evicted, will he be provided with another farm elsewhere.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that Michael Dunne is at present in occupation of a farm. The holding to which he seeks to be restored has been occupied by the present tenant since 1881. The Commissioners do not consider the matter

  1707
  to be one calling for any action on their part.

  Croften Estate Evicted Tenant.
  MR. THOMAS F. SMYTH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from John Reynolds, Drumbeira, Garvagh, Mohill, County Leitrim, on the Croften estate, as the direct representative of the evicted tenant, and which is at present in the occupation of a man named Michael Reynolds; and will the Estates Commissioners offer compensation to Mr. Reynolds with a view to reinstating the evicted tenant's representative, John Reynolds.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners are unable to trace the receipt of any application from John Reynolds for reinstatement in a holding on the Croften estate, County Leitrim, and they have no information in the matter.

  Portadown Orange Arch.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of Catholic and Protestant householders in William Street, Portadown; how long, prior to the present month, was it since an Orange arch had been erected in this street; and whether any police patrol was in the street on the night of the 12th instant when disorderly conduct took place.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The numbers of Catholic and Protestant householders in William Street, Portadown, are twenty-one and thirty-five respectively. The last occasion, prior to the present month, on which an Orange arch was erected in the street was 11th July, 1907. The police patrolled through William Street and the adjacent streets from 9 p.m. on 12th instant to 4 a.m. on 13th instant continuously. No disorderly conduct came under the notice of the police patrols in William Street.

  Caledon Petty Sessions Court.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieu-
  1708
  tenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, after the business of the Caledon petty sessions was over on the 10th instant, Mr. Townsend, the resident magistrate, ordered the public to leave the Court, cautioned two reporters who remained not to take any notice of his remarks, and then, with the concurrence of Dr. Patterson and Mr. Mercer, the only other magistrates present, rebuked the police for not using their batons and dispersing a Nationalist band which paraded the streets of Caledon on the 7th instant, notwithstanding the fact that this band played both Nationalist and Orange airs alternately and had a large number of Protestant followers; whether any of the magistrates present on the bench were Catholics; how many Catholics are on the bench in the district; and whether Mr. Townsend was exceeding his duty in making the remarks referred to, and, if so, whether any official notice will be taken of the incident.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The police have reported that on the 6th instant, from 7 p.m. until a late hour on the following day, a band, followed by a large crowd, paraded the streets of Caledon. The band played Orange and Nationalist airs alternately, and the crowd shouted and yelled. The occasion was the expected eviction of a publican on the following day; but a settlement was come to at the last moment and the eviction did not take place. The small local force was not sufficient to prevent the disorder during the night, but reinforcements were summoned and arrived next morning. Mr. Townsend, the resident magistrate, informs me that at Caledon petty sessions on the 10th instant his brother magistrates complained of the matter, whereupon he asked the police why they had allowed such an intolerable state of things to continue for twenty-four hours to the annoyance of the inhabitants. He said he thought they should have stopped it, but said nothing about batoning. Mr. Townsend's remarks appear to have been made in the interests of the peace and good order of his district, and do not call for official notice. The reason for the inaction of the police has already been stated. The fact that in this instance Orangemen and Nationalists

  1709
  were united in a common purpose does not afford any justification for disturbing the quiet inhabitants of the town for a whole night.

  Wexford Labourers' Cottage Scheme.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that for the last twenty-five years the Wexford Rural District Council have been in the habit of entering into agreements with the parties interested in the lands proposed to be acquired compulsorily for the purposes of the Labourers Acts; that under the improvement scheme they are at present about to carry out the council entered into a number of such agreements; that in cases where they failed to agree as to the price to be paid for the land they applied to the Local Government Board to appoint an arbitrator for that purpose; that on 8th May last the Board appointed an arbitrator to determine the purchase money to be paid so far as compensation for the same has been made the subject of agreement, and that the arbitrator did inquire into such cases; that on 18th June the Local Government Board wrote to the district council to the effect that in a case affecting the Newtownards Rural District Council the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland had unanimously decided that it was not competent for any district council where the lands were proposed to be compulsorily acquired to enter into agreements with the parties interested, and that the compensation therefore should be arrived at by the arbitrator, and accordingly the cases in which agreements had been entered into by the Wexford District Council should be submitted to him; that the arbitrator, notwithstanding the limitation to his appointment, did sit and inquire into these agreement cases and spent a considerable time inspecting the said sites; and whether, having regard to the terms of Section 3 (1) of the Labourers Act of 1896 and Sections 4 and 7 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act of 1890, the Local Government Board propose to appeal against the judgment of the King's Bench so as to have the law on the subject well-established.
  1710
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The facts are generally as stated in the Question. The Local Government Board do not propose to appeal against the decision of the King's Bench Division in the Newtownards case. An appeal, in fact, has been lodged by the prosecutors in that case, and the matter must therefore be regarded as being still sub judice.

  Irish Intermediate Education Inspectors
  MR. WALTER LONG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the rules made by the Intermediate Education Board with the approval of the Lord-Lieutenant under the authority of the Intermediate Education Act of 1900, contemplated the introduction, as part of the system of intermediate education in Ireland, of a scheme providing for the appointment of a staff of permanent inspectors; that the late Government in November, 1905, came to the conclusion that the time had arrived for a reconsideration of the reasons which were previously urged against the adoption of the scheme; that with a view to such reconsideration as well as to place the Government in possession of expert opinion on the question of affecting a much needed co-ordination of the systems of intermediate, primary, and technical education, so far as co-ordination is practicable within the limits of existing powers, a committee representative of the three educational systems was appointed, with instructions to make a Report to the Government on the matters mentioned; whether he will state the names of the representatives who formed this committee; what was the date of its Report; what were the committee's recommendations; whether any action has since been taken on its recommendations; and whether he will now consent to lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the Report of the committee the appointment of which so strongly commended itself to the departments concerned.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The rules of the Intermediate Education Board made in 1902 prescribed bonuses for schools which on inspection should be

  1711
  reported as satisfactory or highly satisfactory. In November, 1905, the Government suggested that the question of the appointment of a staff of permanent inspectors might be usefully reconsidered in the light of, and in conjunction with, the suggestions for co-ordination of the systems of primary and intermediate education made by Messrs. Dale and Stephens in their then recently published Report on Intermediate Education. As a result the matter was considered by a committee consisting of the Right Reverend Dr. Archdall, Bishop of Killaloe and Dr. Starkie, nominated by the Board of National Education, Mr. Justice Madden and the Reverend T. A. Finlay, nominated by the Intermediate Education Board, and Mr. Gill and Mr. Fletcher, nominated by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction. The Report of the Committee, which is marked private and confidential, is dated January, 1906. Its principal recommendation is the appointment of permanent inspectors under the Intermediate Education Board. My predecessor informed the right hon. Gentleman in 1906 that he could not undertake to present the Report in question to Parliament, and I am not prepared to depart from his ruling. I may say, however, that the Government are at present considering a scheme for the appointment of permanent inspectors, and I have reason to hope that a settlement may be arrived at in the near future.

  Queen's County Evicted Tenants.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say what were the number of claims which the Estates Commissioners received from evicted tenants in Queen's County since the passing of the Act of 1903; how many of those tenants were restored or got equivalent farms under the Act of 1903; and how many claims were settled under the Act of last session, and how many remain to be dealt with.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that since the passing of the Irish Land Act, 1903, they have received up to 30th June last 322 applications for re-instatement in Queen's County. Of these
  1712
  applications 129 have been rejected; in fifteen cases the applicants have been restored by the landlords with the assistance of the Commissioners; thirty-six have been provided by the Commisssioners with holdings on lands purchased by them; and seventy-six applicants have been noted as suitable to be provided with holdings in the event of the Commissioners acquiring untenanted land in the neighbourhood of the former holdings; sixty-six of the applications, which were received since 1st May, 1907, have not yet been considered by the Commissioners. Up to the present, no persons have been provided with holdings in Queen's County under the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907.

  Lord Listowel's Estate.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the holdings purchased by the tenants on Lord Listowel's estate in North Kerry will be vested in the tenants so as to reduce the interest on the purchase money from 3½ to 3¼ per cent.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The holdings on this estate, with the exception of a few outstanding cases, were vested in the purchasing tenants on the 16th instant.

  Mr. H. Franks' North Kerry Estate.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say if the estate of Mr. H. Franks, in North Kerry, has been offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners, and, if so, when; has the estate been inspected and reported upon, and, if so, when; what price has the landlord asked, and what price, if any, have the Estates Commissioners offered for the estate; and at what probable date may the sale be completed.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that the estate of Mr. H. Franks in County Kerry has been offered to them under Section 6. An offer has been made to the owner, but he has not, up to the present, agreed to accept it. The Commissioners cannot, therefore, say when the sale will be completed. It would be

  1713
  contrary to the Commissioners' practice to make any statement as to the details of pending negotiations.

  Intermediate Education Rules.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Examination Rules and programme for 1909, which was presented on 23rd June, 1908 and ordered to be printed on 7th July, 1908, will be printed for the use of Members of the House of Commons.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) This Paper was circulated yesterday.

  Blacker Douglas Estate, North Kerry.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the land known as the Jeffcott farm, on the Blacker Douglas estate, situate near Ballylongford, North Kerry, has been offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners, with the view of enlarging uneconomic holdings and giving plots of land to labourers in the district; whether the farm has been inspected and reported upon; and, if so, will the Estates Commissioners secure this farm so as to relieve congestion in a very poor district.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they will not be in a position to give the required information until they have received the report of the inspector to whom all the papers in connection with the estate in question have been referred.

  Deaths from Disease in India.
  MR. REES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can state the number of deaths from plague, cholera, and small-pox, respectively, in any quinquennial period prior to the establishment of British supremacy in India, in the territories corresponding with, or approximating to, the presidencies of Madras, Bombay, Bengal, including East Bengal, the United Provinces, and the Punjab; also the amount spent on famine relief, and the amount of remissions or suspensions of land revenue
  1714
  in each of the provinces named during the like period on account of the total or partial failure of crops; and whether he can give the same information in respect of any other administration in Asia, whether or not under direct or indirect European control.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) No, we have no means of obtaining the information asked for by the hon. Member.

  Madras Deputy Collector's Appeals.
  MR. O'GRADY: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether Mr. Kothandaramayya, formerly deputy collector and magistrate in the Madras presidency, petitioned the Secretary of State for a copy of the proceedings on his appeal against his dismissal from the service; whether such petition has been refused; if so, for what reason, and will the Secretary of State agree to lay the Papers dealing with the matter upon the Table of the House.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) The appellant did petition the Secretary of State for a copy of the orders passed in disposing of his case. On inquiry, it was ascertained that the substance of the orders had been duly communicated to the memorialist. The Secretary of State knew no reason why passages in the orders passed, not dealing with the merits of the case but containing instructions to the Madras Government, should be communicated to the memorialist; nor does he see any advantage in laying the Papers upon the Table of the House.
  MR. O'GRADY: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Mr. Kothandaramayya, formerly deputy-collector and magistrate in the Madras Presidency, appealed to the Secretary of State for India against the order of the Madras Government removing him from service, and that the Secretary of State, as a result of inquiry, characterised the procedure as arbitrary and unjudicial; and whether, in consequence of the view so taken, any relief or reparation was granted Mr. Kothandaramayya.

  1715
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan). The Secretary of State did not use the language mentioned in the Question He desired, in April, 1904, that the memorialist might be informed that he saw no sufficient reason for disturbing the order passed by the Madras Government in his case, in dismissing him from the service of the Government. The present Secretary of State in July, 1907, on a full consideration of a renewed appeal by the memorialist, refused to re-open the question.

  State of Jasdan.
  MR. E. H. LAMB: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India, if he will state what amount of compensation has been paid to the sons and grandsons of the late Krachar Shri Ala Chela, Chief of the third-class State of Jasdan in Kathiawar, since they were disinherited by order of His Majesty's Government; and whether States, even smaller than that held by the above chief, have in recent years been divided among the heirs, according to the traditional custom which was overruled in the case of Jasdan.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan). I have no information as to the allowances allotted to the sons and grandsons of the late Chief of Jasdan, but it was a condition of the succession of the present Chief that he should make suitable grants to them in maintenance and should act on any advice that might be given to him by Government as to these grants of "giras." As regards the smaller States in which since the Jasdan decision succession may have taken place in accordance with the custom of division, I would point out that in cases where the application of the principle of division has resulted in States losing internal sovereignty and coming under British control and the Thana System, the reasons of policy that governed the Jasdan decision, viz., the maintenance of an estate large enough to support internal sovereignty, do not apply.

  Importation of Spirits into Nigeria.
  MR. ELLIS: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now state the nature of the tribunal to
  1716
  whom the investigation of the importation of spirits into Nigeria is to be referred; what is its constitution; and what are the terms of reference thereto.
  (Answered by Colonel Seely). The Colonial Office is in communication with the Native Races and the Liquor Traffic United Committee as to the best manner of conducting the investigation. It is probable that some time will elapse before the details can be settled, but my right hon. friend may rest assured that there shall be no avoidable delay.

  Exchequer and Audit Department.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Under-secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will explain why members of the Exchequer and Audit Department serving in the Crown Colonies and Protectorates are not allowed their travelling expenses to and from the ports of embarkation.
  (Answered by Colonel Seely). I can only assure my hon. friend that officers of the Exchequer and Audit Department are treated precisely in the same way as all civil officers of the Crown Colonies and Protectorates who receive free passages. It is an old-established practice that free passages should not carry also the right to free railway journeys, etc., between the port of embarkation and the home of the officers.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse). This is the general rule in force throughout the Colonial service, and accordingly the Colonial Office thought it desirable to adopt it in the cases referred to in the Question.

  Jamaica Relief Fund.
  MR. HUNT: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the committee under the chairmanship of the Governor of Jamaica, appointed to distribute the money voted by Parliament and subscribed by the English public towards the relief of the sufferers from the Kingston earthquake, has caused grants to be made to certain sufferers on the condition that such funds were to be expended only in litigation for the prosecution of

  1717
  insurance claims; and, seeing that this money was intended to be applied to relief, whether he has sanctioned this diversion from its original object; and, if not, whether he will signify his disapproval to the Governor of Jamaica.
  (Answered by Colonel Seely). In the Report of the Assistance Committee for the period ended 31st March last the following passage occurs:—"It appeared to the Committee that one of the most effective and practical means of giving assistance would be to help those persons who had lost property and stock by fire and whose insurance claims were contested, with the result that they were unable to rebuild or to resume business, to obtain at any rate a legal decision upon their claims. The Committee having ascertained that the majority of the persons so affected had combined to support legal action on their common behalf, and that the plaintiffs in two test cases had been successful in actions in the Supreme Court and on appeal, and were in pressing need of funds to defend an appeal against these judgments before the Privy Council, the Committee decided to allot to each of such persons so interested, who had applied to them for assistance and whose case on investigation, they had decided to be one which they were entitled to aid under the law, a special grant to assist him or her to defray his share of the legal expenses of prosecuting the last-mentioned appeals. In all cases, therefore, in which they had decided to give a building grant or a trade grant to an insured person so situated they further allotted an amount equal to 2 per cent. on the amount for which such person had been insured and had been refused allotment by an insurance company, on the condition that if he should be successful in his claim the amount of such allotment should be returned into the Assistance Fund. The grants made in this manner amounted to £2,263 3s. 3d. As has already been stated, in cases in which a building grant was made on a building destroyed by fire it was stipulated that if fire insurance was recovered a proportion of the amount received should be repaid into the Assistance Fund according to the scale on which the grant had been made." The Secretary of State sees no reason to question the action of the Committee in
  1718
  making grants to enable persons who had lost property and stock by the fire, and whose insurance claims were contested, to obtain a legal decision on their claims.

  Imports of Continental Hops.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the President of the Board, of Trade whether Continental hops are now being offered on forward contract to be delivered in London in October next at 28s. 6d. per cwt.; and whether such hops can be dealt with in England without being subject to the provisions of the Hop (Prevention of Frauds) Act, 1866.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) It is possible that Continental hops of old stock or of the lowest grade of 1908 crop may have been offered at the price stated. I am informed, however, that current quotations range from 30s. to 70s. per cwt. without business. I understand that the Select Committee on the Hop Industry were of opinion that it would be impracticable to apply the general provisions of the Act of 1866 to foreign hops without further legislation.

  Hop Harvest in the United States.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he will state at what period of the year the hop crop is picked in the United States of America; and whether he is aware that so-called 1908 American hops have been advertised for sale in London during the present month of July.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I am informed that American hops are not picked until August. I have no information as to the latter part of the Question.

  Hop Acreage in England and America.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, what was the acreage of hops cultivated in the Western States of America and in England in each of the last twenty-five years.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The following statement gives the information desired by the hon. Member so far as it is available. Acreage under hops in (1) England and Wales; and (2) the Western Division of the United States of America—

  Years.

  England and Wales.

  Western Division of the United States of America.*

  Acres.

  Acres.

  1880

  66,698

  1957

  1881

  64,943

  1957

  1882

  65,619

  1957

  1883

  68,016

  1957

  1884

  69,258

  1957

  1885

  71,327

  1957

  1886

  70,127

  1957

  1887

  63,706

  1957

  1888

  58,494

  1957

  1889

  57,749

  1957

  1890

  53,961

  12,239

  1891

  56,145

  12,239

  1892

  56,259

  12,239

  1893

  57,564

  12,239

  1894

  59,535

  12,239

  1895

  58,940

  12,239

  1896

  54,217

  12,239

  1897

  50,863

  12,239

  1898

  49,735

  12,239

  1899

  51,843

  12,239

  1900

  51,308

  27,683

  1901

  51,127

  27,683

  1902

  48,031

  27,683

  1903

  47,938

  27,683

  1904

  47,799

  27,683

  1905

  48,967

  27,683

  1906

  46,722

  27,683

  1907

  44,938

  27,683

  1907

  44,938

  27,683

  * These particulars are only collected at the time of the Decennial Census.

  The Western Division comprises the following States:—Montana, New Mexico, Washington, Idaho, Arizona, Oregon, Wyoming, Utah, California, Colorado, Nevada.

  Consumptive Emigrants to Canada.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that under Canadian Law emigrants from this country who develop consumption within two years after arrival in Canada are required to return; and, seeing that the various steamship companies make no provision for the isolation of such passengers, will he consider the expediency of communicating with the companies on the subject.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I am aware of the provisions of the Canadian Immigration Acts on this subject, and I believe that the steamship companies are fully alive to their responsibilities under those Acts, and take precautions to prevent persons being embarked who are liable to be deported. I will consider whether any further action should be taken, but the powers of the Board of Trade are limited to securing that steerage passengers shall not be embarked who are likely to be a danger to themselves or to others during the voyage.

  Scottish Crofters.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the abandonment of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill, will he introduce legislation to extend the benefits of the Crofters Act to crofter tenants holding under lease.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I must refer my hon. friend to the terms of my Answer to his Question of yesterday in regard to the Amendment of the Crofters Act.

  Price of Beef in Chicago and New York.
  MR. COOPER: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, what have been the average prices of beef per 8 lbs. in Chicago and in New York from July, 1907, to June, 1908.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The following statement gives the parti-
  1722
  culars asked for so far as regards New York. I am endeavouring to obtain corresponding particulars as regards Chicago—

  Wholesale market price of beef in New York, July, 1907, to June, 1908.

  Month.

  Mean price per 8 pounds.

  1907.

  s.

  d.

  July

  2

  4

  August

  2

  3

  September

  2

  4

  October

  2

  5

  November

  2

  5½

  December

  2

  6¼

  1908.

  January

  2

  6

  February

  2

  4¾

  March

  2

  5¾

  April

  2

  9

  May

  2

  9½

  June

  2

  9½*

  * Based on quotation for 4th June only.

  Note.—The figures are the mean of highest and lowest quotations of "family beef" for one day in each week of the month, and are taken from "Monthly Summary of Commerce and Finance of the United States."

  Imports of Foreign Hops.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the imports of foreign hops in 1820 and ach subsequent year.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The following statement gives the information asked for by the hon. Member—:

  Table showing the quantity of hops imported into the United Kingdom in each year from 1820 to 1907, inclusive—

  Years.

  Quantity imported.

  Years.

  Quantity imported.

  Cwts.

  Cwts.

  1820

  1

  1846

  3,283

  1821

  —

  1847

  1,471

  1822

  —

  1848

  385

  1823

  572

  1849

  5,265

  1824

  2,171

  1850

  6,479

  1825

  3,202

  1851

  462

  1826

  1,914

  1852

  309

  1827

  5

  1853

  42,344

  1828

  41

  1854

  119,040

  1829

  28

  1855

  24,662

  1830

  77

  1856

  15,987

  1831

  98

  1857

  18,711

  1832

  100

  1858

  13,000

  1833

  299

  1859

  2,220

  1834

  471

  1860

  68,918

  1835

  28

  1861

  149,176

  1836

  —

  1862

  133,791

  1837

  —

  1863

  147,281

  1838

  46

  1864

  98,656

  1839

  —

  1865

  82,479

  1840

  107

  1866

  85,687

  1841

  34

  1867

  296,117

  1842

  —

  1868

  231,720

  1843

  28

  1869

  322,515

  1844

  267

  1870

  127,853

  1845

  726

  1871

  218,664

  Years.

  Quantity imported.

  Years.

  Quantity imported.

  Cwts.

  Cwts.

  1872

  135,965

  1890

  188,028

  1873

  122,729

  1891

  195,266

  1874

  145,994

  1892

  187,507

  1875

  256,444

  1893

  204,392

  1876

  167,366

  1894

  189,155

  1877

  250,039

  1895

  217,161

  1878

  168,834

  1896

  207,041

  1879

  262,765

  1897

  164,154

  1880

  195,987

  1898

  244,136

  1881

  147,559

  1899

  180,233

  1882

  319,620

  1900

  198,494

  1883

  129,900

  1901

  116,042

  1884

  256,777

  1902

  191,324

  1885

  266,952

  1903

  113,998

  1886

  153,759

  1904

  313,667

  1887

  145,122

  1905

  108,953

  1888

  216,606

  1906

  232,619

  1889

  199,384

  1907

  202,324

  Tarbert Pier, Loch Fyne.
  MR. WATT: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet got from the Scottish Office the desired information about Talbert Pier, Loch Fyne, and, if so, will he communicate it to the House.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The information with which my right hon. friend has furnished me as the result of his inquiries is to the following effect: The pier in question has been let for a considerable time past by the Campbells of Stonefield. The lease expired in May last, when the property was again adver-
  1726
  tised and the offer of the former lessee accepted. Owing, however, to a difficulty that arose between Mr. Campbell and his tenant, the former decided to make the pier free to the public and he is carrying out certain repairs. Doubts appear to have arisen in the locality as to who is really the owner of the pier, but no authentic information is at present forthcoming on this point.

  Churches (Scotland) Commission.
  MR. SUTHERLAND: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether all the allocations by the Churches (Scotland) Commission were made months

  1727
  ago; and, if so, when the final distribution will take place.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) A comprehensive statement of the allocation of the entire funds and property of the churches was communicated to the Press on 17th February last, but these allocations are inoperative until given effect to in formal orders which are very numerous and involve detailed adjustments, the completion of which remains largely in the hands of the agents for the churches. It is believed that all the work entailed will be concluded during the extended period for which the Commission has been appointed.

  Partial Exemption Scholars.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether the additional attendances allowed under Article 43 (c) of the Day School Code in respect of partial exemption scholars are also counted in determining the accommodation of a school and the staff required.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The Answer is in the negative.

  Police Day of Rest.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the sitting of the Committee on the Police Day of Rest Bill, he will order a ballot to be taken of the constables of the Metropolitan Police Force on the subject; whether his attention has been called to the instructions of the Chief Commissioner of Police to the chief inspectors to ascertain from sergeants and constables their views on a number of questions dealing with weekly leave, loss of payment for such leave, a reduction of pension if such leave were granted, and other matters outside the terms of reference submitted to the Committee; and whether he sanctioned this action of the Chief Commissioner; and, whether, with a view to having a free and impartial return of the men, he will have the question of a day's rest in seven placed before them on ballot papers for them to express their votes for or against.
  1728
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The hon. Member must have been misinformed. The Commissioner of Police informs me that he has not given instructions for any such inquiries as are mentioned in the Question. The matter is not one in which a ballot could be taken with any advantage, as the chief question involved is one of finance and of increased burden on the ratepayers.

  English Industrial Schools.
  LORD R. CECIL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many day industrial schools there are in England, and what is the number of scholars, male and female, in average attendance at them and whether any practical difficulties have been found in carrying out the system of religious instruction in those schools, and, if so, what are those difficulties.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) There are fifteen day industrial schools in England. The average attendance in 1707 was 1,257 boys and 694 girls. No difficulties have been experienced in carrying out the system of religious instruction.

  English Bop Acreage.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what was the English acreage of hops in the years 1820, 1835, 1845, 1855, 1865, 1875, 1885, 1895, and 1907.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The existing system of collecting returns of the acreage under hops in England only commenced in 1866. The figures for 1875 and other years specified are as follows:—

  Year.

  Acreage.

  1875

  69,171

  1885

  71,327

  1895

  58,940

  1907

  44,938

  Cattle Disease.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President

  1729
  of the Board of Agriculture, what arrangements exist for securing the prompt international notification of the existence of contagious diseases of sheep and cattle in different countries; whether the presence of any contagious diseases of cattle, e.g., foot-and-mouth disease, rinderpest, or pleuro-pneumonia, has been reported during the present year in Canada or the United States; and how many cases have been reported.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) With reference to the first part of the Question perhaps my hon. friend will allow me to refer him to my reply on 28th May to a similar Question by my hon. friend the Member for Bermondsey. The reply to the latter part of the Question is, so far as we are aware, in the negative.

  Unemployment in the Building Trade.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the amount of unemployment in the building trade, he will put in hand all new Government buildings, and alterations, additions, and repairs to existing buildings for which money has been voted by Parliament, with the object of relieving to some extent the distress now existing in this industry.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) I said on 13th July, in answer to the hon. Member for West Ham, that I am as much interested as anybody in pressing on this work, and no time is being lost in doing so.

  Greenwich Park Night Watchmen.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether it was by his authority that an order was issued in March last by which the night watchmen's hours in Greenwich Park were increased from eight to thirteen per night, making ninety-one hours per week without extra pay; and whether, in consequence of objecting to this increase on the ground of its unreasonableness, a watchman of ten years standing has been punished by removal from his position as watchman to that of labourer and debarred from sharing in Sunday duty and over-
  1730
  time; what is the reason for the increase in the working hours; and whether he will make inquiries into the matter with a view to another arrangement being made and the reinstatement of the workman in question.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) The arrangement was made in order to bring the duties of the watchman at Greenwich Park into line with the practice in other parks. Before March last there was no watchman on duty at Greenwich during the earlier night hours after closing time. The hours will vary according to the time of the year. The late watchman was given the option of retaining the post, but declined, preferring to revert to ordinary work at 4s. 6d. a day, which was his pay as a watchman, only that he earned it for seven days a week instead of six days as at present. He is not debarred from overtime or Sunday duty, with extra pay, when it may be required. I see no ground for further action in the matter.

  Strangers Lobby Mosaics.
  MR. ESSEX: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the four panels in the Strangers Lobby, two of which are now filled with mosaics, were originally intended to be all filled in with mosaic decoration; are there any cartoons or working drawings in existence intended to provide for the two vacant panels; is it intended in the near future to complete the four; and are the patron saints of Ireland and Scotland to form the motifs for the remaining designs.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) I think it most desirable that the two remaining panels should be finished in mosaic, as was always intended; but I fear that the condition of the public finances will not warrant the Government at present in spending money in works of supererogation, however decorative. I may, however, suggest that these panels are very suitable for private generosity on the part of those who are addicted to the missing saints, and I shall be glad to receive any communications in this direction.

  Weir Hospital Grant.
  SIR HENRY KIMBER: To ask the hon. Member for the Elland Division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether the Charity Commissioners will extend the time allowed for objections and suggestions to the draft scheme in the matter of the Weir Hospital grant by the inhabitants of the parish of Streatham until 14th October next, the date to which they have extended the time to the Wandsworth borough council.
  (Answered by Mr. Trevelyan.) The Charity Commissioners will extend the time as desired.

  Aberdeen Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve.
  MR. PIRIE: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, in connection with the inquiry which has been asked for, and the consideration by the Admiralty Volunteer Committee into the creation of a new division of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve at Aberdeen, if he will consider the advisability of holding a public inquiry there, with due notice, so that a local committee might be formed amongst those most likely to be of help in the matter; and if he will keep in view the advantages which would accrue from the retention of H.M.S. "Clyde" as a drill-hall and head-quarters of the proposed new division of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) As was stated on the 13th instant, the matter referred to by my hon. friend is receiving consideration in case any extension of the existing numbers of the Naval Volunteers should be required. The matter has not yet reached a stage at which a public inquiry at Aberdeen would be of advantage. The old system of training the Royal Naval Reserve on Board stationary drill ships is being terminated, and in consequence H.M.S. "Clyde" will be paid off on or before 31st March, 1911.

  Burning of Bonar Bridge, Crofters' House.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord-Advocate whether he is aware that on Saturday, 18th July last, the sheriff officer forcibly
  1732
  entered the house of John Murray, a crofter residing alone on a croft at Laidbreack, Bonar Bridge, inherited from his grandfather twenty years since, and, during the crofters' absence from home, removed his goods and burnt the house to the ground; and will he state why this official adopted such extreme measures, and whether steps will be taken to arrest this method of carrying out evictions.
  (Answered by Mr. Thomas Shaw.) I have perused a Report from the chief constable on this subject with certain depositions and documents. While it appears from these that John Murray is not a crofter as alleged, and has never been tenant of the subjects at Laidbreack, and neither worked the land nor had stock thereon, I have thought it right to remit the question to the Crown Office, and I have directed that a special Report from the procurator fiscal should be made upon the eviction proceedings referred to. These proceedings were presumably taken on the responsibility of the proprietor.

  Beer Brewing Statistics.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the numbers of standard barrels of beer brewed in Great Britain in the years 1820, 1835, 1845, 1855, 1865, 1875, 1885, 1895, and 1907.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Barrels of Beer brewed in Great Britain

  Year ended

  Barrels.

  5th July, 1821

  Strong Beer

  5,699,329

  Table Beer

  1,646,141

  Total

  7,345,470

  Duty repealed 1830. No returns available for the years 1835, 1845, and 1855, the duty being levied on malt.

  Year ended

  Barrels.

  31st March, 1866

  23,853,391

  (estimated)

  30th September, 1875

  28,988,767

  (estimated)

  31st March, 1866

  25,045,275

  (estimated)

  31st March, 1896

  31,023,360

  31st March, 1908

  30,931,227

  Old-Age Pensions and Workhouse Pensioners.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if pensioners in workhouses, the cost of whose maintenance is deducted from pension, are debarred from the benefit of the Old-age Pensions Bill by Clause 3.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The question is one of some difficulty; but, at at present advised, I am disposed to think that the Answer is in the affirmative.

  West Africa Nickel Coinage.
  MR. ESSEX: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will exhibit during the autumn session in the Library or Tea-Room, or some other easily accessible part of the House, an example of each of the nickel coins issued last year to certain Colonies on the West Coast of Africa, and together therewith examples of the bronze coins of similar values now in current use in the United Kingdom.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I have given instructions for my hon. friend's suggestion to be carried out.

  Inland Revenue Chemical Officers.
  MR. SNOWDEN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to reply to the petition of the chemical officers of Inland Revenue, forwarded to the Board of Inland Revenue in July, 1907, asking for the grant of an allowance similar to that paid to testing officers of Customs at the outports.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The matter is still under consideration.

  Captain Bryce Wilson
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, after making, an adverse confidential report with reference to Captain Bryce Wilson, his commanding officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Graham, recommended him for promotion to a majority in a cavalry regiment serving, or about to serve, in India.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether, on 2nd Decem-
  1734
  ber, 1907, the War Office officially stated that there was nothing against the character or efficiency of Captain Wilson; and whether, in view of that fact and the desirability of establishing public confidence in the decisions of the military authorities, he will state why Captain Wilson was dismissed or retired from the service in view of such official declarations.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that Captain Bryce Wilson, late of the 5th Lancers, was dealt with upon the basis of a confidential report made by Lieutenant-Colonel Graham, which it was alleged was wholly untrue and at variance with the previous Reports made by the said commanding officer; and whether, in the interest of the service and the public, he will direct an investigation to be made into the circumstances and truth of such Report.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that in October, 1907, Captain Wilson was placed on half-pay and subsequently gazetted out of the 5th Lancers, not-withstanding the fact that on 25th November, 1907, his late commanding officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Graham, admitted his fitness to remain in the service, while objecting to his continuance (for private and personal reasons) in the 5th Lancers; and whether he will insist upon a full explanation being given why two inconsistent and contradictory Reports were allowed to be given by and received from the same officer with regard to the subject.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) In replying to these four Questions together, I take the opportunity of stating the facts as to what took place. On receiving from Lieutenant-Colonel Graham a Report that Captain Bryce Wilson had not a good influence in his regiment, the Army Council called upon General Sir John French, Commanding-in-Chief at Aldershot, for his views. He reported that in his opinion Captain Wilson should not be permitted to rejoin the 5th Lancers, on account of the bad influence he exercised over the junior officers of the regiment. These

  1735
  Reports are regarded as fully justifying the action taken by the Army Council in placing Captain Bryce Wilson on half-pay. It subsequently came to the knowledge of the War Office that the removal to half-pay of five officers of the regiment, of whom Captain Wilson was one, had given rise to rumours which reflected upon the character of these officers. Having regard to the fact that other officers, besides Captain Bryce Wilson, had been placed on half-pay, it was decided to make a general announcement to the effect that the action taken was not taken on grounds detrimental to their characters. At the same time Captain Wilson's retention in the regiment was considered to be undesirable for the reasons given by Sir John French to which I have already alluded. It is true that, after reporting adversely upon Captain Wilson, Lieutenant-Colonel Graham recommended him for promotion into a cavalry regiment serving or about to serve in India, but the Army Council did not agree with the recommendation. In expressing the opinion that this officer was not unfit to remain in the service Lieutenant-Colonel Graham intended to imply that in extra-regimental employment, the special reasons which rendered Captain Wilson's retention in the 5th Lancers so undesirable would not operate at all events to anything like the same extent. The whole circumstances have been considered by me personally as well as in consultation, and in my opinion, and that of my military advisers, it would not be in the interests of the Army or the public to restore Captain Bryce Wilson to his former position.

  Shoebury Fishery Rights.
  MR. WHITEHEAD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether any several and private rights of fishery now exist over any, and what, part of the foreshore belonging to the War Office in the parishes of Foulness, Shoebury, Great Wakering, or Southchurch; and whether any such rights have by conveyance become vested in the Crown, and, if so, over what part of the said foreshore.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I am not in a position to answer the
  1736
  hon. Member's Question without some investigation, and I will let him have a written reply in due course.

  Irish Territorial Force Officers and Jury Service.
  COLONEL McCALMONT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether officers belonging to the Territorial Force or to the Militia in Ireland are exempt from serving on ordinary or special juries.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the Answer which I gave last Monday to a similar Question by the hon. and gallant Member for East Down. Ireland is no exception in this matter.

  Director of Army Finance.
  COLONEL R. WILLIAMS: To ask the Secretary of State for War in what respects he has reconstituted the office of Director of Army Finance; whether the minute or other document defining the duties and responsibilities of the reconstituted office has the approval of the Treasury and will be laid upon the Table of the House; and if he can assure the House that its financial control is in no way weakened by the change.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The details of the changes involved have not yet been settled; but the hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that in any modifications that may be made the principles laid down in the second Report of the Public Accounts Committee of this year will be carefully and exactly observed, and the financial control of the House will be in no way weakened. I shall be prepared when the time comes to lay upon the Table a document defining the responsibilities and duties of the Assistant Financial Secretary, who will be the Accounting. Officer of the War Department.

  Printing of Government Bills.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of establishing, as a general practice, in the printing of Government Bills and Acts of Parliament to which schedules

  1737
  are attached, that there should be inserted opposite each schedule as a marginal note a reference, to the section or sections which contain references to that schedule.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I will consider this question. There is no doubt that the practice could be followed as regards Acts. The only difficulty as regards Bills is the practical difficulty of keeping the references correct when Bills have to be reprinted without delay after their various stages in Parliament.

  Rosyth.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: To ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the low price of raw material, the increased numbers of the unemployed on the North-East Coast, and the imminence of wasteful local relief works, he will consider the expediency of expediting those naval works at Rosyth, which are necessary to the Fleet and which would offer a large field for labour.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) As has already been stated by my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, the contract will be placed as soon as possible, and it is proposed to make provision in its terms for a premium to be paid to the contractor for completion of the work before the contract time.

  Fisheries Investigation Report.
  SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY: To ask the Prime Minister when the Report of the Treasury Committee on Scientific and Statical Fisheries Investigation will be printed and circulated; and whether the Government will adopt the recommendations.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The Report of the Committee will be laid upon the Table forthwith, but I am not in a position to state what conclusions may be arrived at with regard to the Committee's recommendations.

  Customs Warehouses Stock-taking.
  MR. SEARS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the
  1738
  system of periodical stock-taking in warehouses under the Inland Revenue Department and under the Customs Board; is he aware that in connection with a certain warehouse handed over from the Customs to the Inland Revenue in 1903 a balance was struck showing stock representing a duty of £1,200 when there was not a single package in the warehouse; will he cause inquiry to be made into this matter and into the methods of stock-taking adopted in the Customs, and an investigation to ascertain whether the stock shown in the books of the Board agree with the stock actually in the warehouse; and whether there has been a fraudulent removal of stock from any of the other warehouses under that Board.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Treasury have had the matter referred to in this question under their consideration quite recently, and it will be further considered in connection with the proposed amalgamation of the two Revenue Boards. The Board of Customs are unable to trace the transfer in 1903 of the bonded warehouse mentioned.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Submarine Dangers.
  MR. MACPHERSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what means, if any, animal or mechanical, existed on board Submarine No 9 for the detection of the escape of petrol gas; and whether he will state what methods the Admiralty propose taking to prevent the recurrence of such mishaps as that which took place on Submarine No. 9 off Folkestone on Tuesday 9th July.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): In the case of the recent accident in Submarine A. 9 owing to a mechanical defect, a large quantity of exhaust gases escaped into the boat. The effect was sudden; and the occurence of defects of this kind, though happily rare, are almost impossible to guard against. Engines have so much improved since submarine boats were first built, that such an escape of petrol gas as white mice would serve to register, is no longer

  1739
  to be feared. There is no remedy for such an accident as occurred in A. 9, the effect of carbon monoxide on the men being so rapid.

  Report on the Naval Manœuvres.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state when the customary report as to the recent naval manœuvres will be issued.
  MR. MCKENKA: The recent manœuvres, like those of October 1907, were in the nature of confidential fleet exercises, and no report on them will be issued.

  Royal Naval Reserve.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Government will consider the advisability and propriety of granting to officers and men of the Royal Naval Reserve a long-service and good-conduct medal; and whether he will consider the advisability of granting to trained men of the Royal Naval Reserve a higher rank than that at present given of A.B. or stoker.
  MR. McKENNA: The grant of a decoration to the officers of the Royal Naval Reserve and of a medal to the men is still under consideration, but it is hoped to make an announcement on the subject at an early date. Under the regulations for the new system of training, a limited number of seamen and stokers, Royal Naval Reserve, not exceeding two per cent. of each class, are eligible for advancement to the ratings of leading seamen and leading stokers, Royal Naval Reserve, subject to the conditions for promotion laid down in the Royal Naval Reserve regulations.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: May I assume that the matter is under favourable consideration?
  MR. McKENNA: I hope to make at an early date an announcement which I trust will satisfy the hon. Member.

  Trial Trips of New Vessels.
  MR. CURRAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that several
  1740
  of His Majesty's vessels have gone out on trial-trip from the yard of Messrs. Hawthorn, Leslie, and Company, Government contractors, inefficiently and undermanned; that H.M.S. Torpedo boat No. 21, with machinery by Messrs. Hawthorn, Leslie, and Company, has had a number of unsuccessful trial-trips during the last five months; that the engine-room and boiler-room staff at the trials of this vessel, which uses oil as fuel, was composed of apprentices to the extent of about 75 per cent; and whether he will make representations to the firm in question on the matter.
  MR. McKENNA: Two vessels for which Messrs. Hawthorn, Leslie, and Company are the contractors, have made trials, but they were not considered to be inefficiently manned or under-manned. Torpedo-boat No. 21—one of the above two vessels—has made a number of trials during the last five months. These were unsuccessful solely because the contract speed had not been realised. Although the complement of No. 21 Torpedo-boat has throughout these trials been known to be largely composed of apprentices, it is not considered that the failure to attain the contract speed was attributable to any inefficiency in the engine-room staff. No representation to the firm is necessary on this matter, as no condition of their contract with the Admiralty has been infringed.
  MR. CURRAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman investigate why the contract speeds were not realised?
  MR. McKENNA: A contract would not be concluded till the contract speed was realised.

  Messrs G Corderoy & Co. and the Admiralty.
  MR. GUINNESS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty on what works Messrs. G. Corderoy and Co. have been employed during the last five years by the Admiralty as quantity surveyors; on what basis payments have been made to this and other firms; and whether the Admiralty have considered the question of employing their own staff to carry out this work.
  MR. McKENNA: List of works undertaken by Messrs. G. Corderoy and Co.,

  1741
  during the five years ending 31st March, 1908:—Malta, Docks and Breakwater; Gibraltar Dockyard, Harbour, Commercial Mole, Dockyard Extension and Coaling Facilities; Dover, Harbour; Hong Kong, Dockyard Extension and Coaling Facilities; Cape of Good Hope, Dockyard Extension; Chatham, New Dock, Naval Barracks, Hospital, Slaughter-house, Commander-in-Chief's Residence, New River Wall; Pembroke, Jetty; Sheerness, Depot for Torpedo Boat Destroyers and Drainage; West India Docks, New Offices; Deptford, Seamen's Clothing Store; Greenwich, Laboratories; Deal, Additions to Sergeant's Mess; Horsea Island, Torpedo Range; Haulbowline, Coaling Jetty; Dartmouth, Royal Naval College; Devonport, Dockyard Extension, Naval Barracks, Electrical Generating Station, &c, Gunnery School, Magazines, Coaling; Plymouth, Hospital, Wards for Lunatics. The basis on which payments have been made to this and other firms is a percentage on the cost of the work for which quantities have been prepared or measurements made. The Board have only just received for consideration a full report on the question of employing the Admiralty Works Department staff to do this work.

  Naval Discussions.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any communications have been received at the Admiralty from the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet with reference to a serious collision having been imminent between H.M.S. "Good Hope" and H.M.S. "Argyll," owing to an order given by the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet.
  MR. McKENNA: The Board have had reported to them and have examined the positions of the Fleet at the moment the signal referred to was made, and they are satisfied that the manœuvre was not dangerous. At the same time the Rear Admiral, as he thought there was risk in carrying out the order, was justified in turning the other way; and the Commander-in-Chief so informed him by signal at the time.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Will my right hon. friend convey that answer
  1742
  to the editors of those papers which erroneously accused Lord Charles Beresford of having endangered the lives of 1,600 men?
  MR. McKENNA: I think it is always desirable to avoid communications with the Press.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is now speaking for the whole of his colleagues?
  MR. McKENNA: I do not think I should be called upon to answer that Question.

  Naval Ordnance Department and Petitions from the Employees.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that an executive officer of the Naval Ordnance Department has refused to forward a petition from the storehouse clerks to the Admiralty, and, if so, can he say whether this officer was acting upon his own authority, and what action he intends to take in the matter.
  MR. McKENNA: A petition put forward by the storehouse clerks to amend the position of their own class at Woolwich in January last, was objected to by the acting naval ordnance officer on the ground that it was signed by several men who were not storehouse clerks. They were directed to amend the petition by excluding such names, but they preferred to withdraw it. Since that time no new petition has been received. This action, which was correct, was taken by the acting naval ordnance officer on his own authority. If a properly signed petition is put forward it will be duly considered.

  Overtime in Deptford Victualling Yard.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty how much overtime has been worked by the employees at Deptford Victualling Yard since 31st March, 1908, and how many men have been discharged from the same place since the same date.
  MR. McKENNA: The amount of overtime worked in 100 days since 31st March is computed at fifteen minutes per day

  1743
  per man. Fifteen workpeople have been discharged and six entered, making a net discharge of nine persons.

  Deptford Victualling Yard Storehouse Staff.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can say when the storehouse staff at Deptford Victualling Yard are likely to receive the increase of wages promised them two years ago.
  MR. McKENNA: The pay, etc. of the storehouse staff at all the victualling yards is now receiving consideration, and a decision will be promulgated within the next few weeks.

  Naval Courts Martial.
  MR. NIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether in the Channel and Home (Nore Division) Fleets there has been an abnormal number of courts martial held upon men for breaches of discipline during the past twelve months; and whether this state of things is largely due to the week-end leave which prevails, or has prevailed, during that period.
  MR. McKENNA: I am sending the hon. Member copies of the quarterly returns for last year. There is no reason to suppose that there has been an abnormal number of courts martial in the fleets named during the past twelve months.
  MR. NIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the especial difficulty or what the disproportionate amount of labour involved which prevents him from informing the House what is the total of the men of all ratings in the various fleets or squadrons, and the number of courts martial held in respect of charges of insubordination or breach of discipline during the past twelve months; and whether those figures being given the department is not competent to give the percentages asked for.
  MR. McKENNA: I have already sent the hon. Member the most recent return showing the number of men tried by court martial in the various fleets. The difficulty in ascertaining the percentages arises from the doubt as to what exactly the hon. Member means when he speaks
  1744
  of the Home Fleet, Channel Fleet, &c, and to the variation during the year in the composition of the fleets and the numbers of men borne.

  Contracts for Destroyers.
  MR. DU CROS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the contracts for the five destroyers of the 1907 programme have yet been awarded, and, if so, when; and what is the earliest date upon which these vessels can be completed, in view of the fact that some of the twelve German destroyers of the same year are already completed, while at least one of them has done her steam trials.
  MR. McKENNA: The "Crusader" and "Nubian" were ordered in January, and the "Maori," "Viking," "Zulu," in February of this year. They are all expected to be completed by October, 1909.

  Naval Officers and the Press.
  EARL WINTERTON: I beg to ask the Frist Lord of the Admiralty whether he proposes to take steps to ascertain the name of the officer who, in defiance of regulations, recently communicated to a newspaper an account of an alleged incident in the Channel Fleet; and whether, in the event of the name of the officer being discovered, he will be tried by court martial.
  MR. McKENNA: I am not aware what grounds the noble Lord has for imputing a breach of honour to any naval officer. If he will state them or communicate them to me privately, I will investigate them. They are quite unknown to me.
  EARL WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I make no allegation of breach of honour, but rather of breach of regulations? I desire to give notice that, in view of the answer given, I shall raise the matter on the Second Heading of the Appropriation Bill.
  MR. McKENNA: The noble Lord's Question asks whether we propose to take steps to ascertain the name of the officer who, in defiance of regulations, recently communicated to a newspaper an account of an alleged incident in the Channel Fleet. In my judgment it

  1745
  would be a breach of honour for an officer to communicate such a matter to the Press.
  EARL WINTERTON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that that is entirely a matter of opinion? My Question was directed to the matter of fact.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to hold any inquiry to ascertain how this information leaked out to the papers?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that Question.

  Progress in India.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the speedy recovery of the Indian peasantry as soon as periods of abnormally high prices are at an end has been one of the marked features of modern Indian administration; and whether there is a general consensus of opinion that there has been in recent years a progressive improvement in the condition of the inhabitants of the Indian Empire.
  MR. LUPTON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, may I ask whether it is not the fact that in recent years there has been a more rapid succession of famines and a corresponding increase in mortality?
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,): I do not think there have been more lamentable famines in recent years. I think that it one compares the ravages of famine in recent years with those of fifty or 100 years ago, one would find that the ravages then were much greater than they are now. As to the Question on the Paper, the view expressed in the first Question is in accordance with the conclusions of recent Famine Commissions and of the local governments. With regard to the second Question, the hon. Member must judge for himself as to the existence of unanimity on the point. I at any rate agree with him, as he will made have gathered from the remarks I made on the Indian Budget.
  MR. O'GRADY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give figures indicating the average income of the population ten years ago and now?
  MR. BUCHANAN: No, I have not any such figures; but I think that on the whole there has been a development in the prosperity of the poorest of the population in India.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: These happy people are thriving on 1½d. per day!

  Afforestation in India.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that the object of the forest policy of the Government of India is the utilisation of forests for the benefit of the cultivating classes and not for the increase of the revenue by the sale of timber, further measures have been taken for the afforestation of waste lands; and, if the answer be in the affirmative, whether the result of such measures can be stated to the House.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The afforestation of waste lands for the benefit of the cultivating classes is one of the main duties of the Forest Department. The chapter on Forests in the Moral and Material Progress Statement for the decennial period ending 1901–2 deals fully with the progress made during that period, and more recent information is given in the Annual Statements for succeeding years. The Statement for 1906–7 was presented in May last.

  Indian Administrative Reforms.
  MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the reforms in the administration of India which are now under consideration will necessitate legislation by this House; and whether, in view of the situation in India, he will consent to circulate the draft reform proposals to Members of Parliament before the House reassembles for the autumn session, in order to enable the House to deal effectively with the legislation which will be introduced.
  MR. BUCHANAN: At the present stage it is not certain whether the improvements now under consideration will,

  1747
  or will not, demand legislation in Parliament. It would be a departure from settled usage to circulate draft proposals, before formal submission of definite conclusions on the responsibility of the Government.
  MR. SMEATON: Will some share of effective control over taxation be given to native statesmen?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I gave as full a statement as possible on that subject last Wednesday week.

  Mr. Tilak's Conviction.
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India if Mr. Tilak, at his recent trial in Bombay, was convicted by seven English jurymen and acquitted by two native jurymen; and, if so, in view of the fact that the jury were disagreed and of the feeling caused by the sentence of six years imprisonment in the Bombay Presidency, whether the Secretary of State will cause the sentence to be remitted.
  MR. BUCHANAN: With regard to my hon. friend's Question I have nothing to add to the full statement that I made on Tuesday in reply to the hon. Member for Brentford.
  MR. LUPTON: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that the articles, for writing which Mr. Tilak was tried, were properly translated for the benefit of the English jury who had to try him for articles written in another language?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I do not think that that is quite a fair presentation of the case. I have no reason for believing that the translation of the articles was otherwise than fair.
  MR. O'GRADY: Is it not the fact that the main line of the defence was that the articles were not accurately translated?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I am not aware of that. I am perfectly certain that, if that were one of the allegations brought forward by Mr. Tilak, it was fairly considered by both the Judge and the jury.
  MR. LUPTON: Would it not be in accordance with proper justice to try such a man before a jury of his own countrymen?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion.
  SIR H. COTTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Tilak objected to the special jury on account of the large majority of Europeans it would contain, and desired to be tried by a jury of his own countrymen?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I think I said the other day that Mr. Tilak challenged a considerable number of the special jurymen, while, on the other hand, the prosecuting counsel only challenged two.
  MR. LUPTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how the panel is summoned? They all seem to be Europeans.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members should put these Questions on the Paper.

  St. Lucia Property Tax Bill.
  SIR HENRY KIMBER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the St. Lucia Property Tax Bill, which, in the opinion of the majority of the inhabitants of the Colony, will cause a serious set-back to the agricultural improvement lately started, has received the approval of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and in view of the riots in the island last year and the probability of a renewal of the disorders if the Bill is forced through the Council, and the effect such a tax had in the Island of Dominica and which caused riots there and necessitated the sending out of a Commission which recommended the abolition of the law, whether his Majesty's Government would request the Administrator of the Colony of St. Lucia to withdraw the Bill which is before the Council; whether seeing that the Colony has a balance of £25,000 to its credit lying idle in the hands of the Crown Agents, he will explain the necessity for further taxation; and whether he will give a Return of the value of the products of the Colony for the past year and the amount of revenue collected by the Government during that period.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY, Liverpool, Abercromby); I understand that the riots of last year did not arise from the Property Tax Bill. The St. Lucia Property Tax Bill of 1907 was postponed early in this year, and the Secretary of State agreed to the appointment of a committee to consider the repeal of the Road Tax and the substitution of taxes on property and on incomes derived from other sources than land. We have not yet received from the Governor a report on the result of the Committee's labours, nor any further Bill. I cannot well discuss the necessity for a readjustment of taxation in reply to a Question, but I may point out that the existence of a reserve surplus balance (which is earning interest and not lying idle) does not relieve the Government from the duty of securing equilibrium in the revenue and expenditure. The annual report containing the statistics desired in the last paragraph of the hon. Baronet's Question has not yet been received from St. Lucia, but will be laid on the Table when received in the usual manner.

  Dinizulu's Salary.
  MR. BYLES,: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if the arrears of salary due to Dinizulu have been actually paid from the Imperial Treasury; and, if so, what steps will be taken to recover the money from the Natal Government.
  COLONEL SEELY: No money has yet been paid. I cannot at present add anything to the statement which I made on Tuesday.
  MR. BYLES: How much longer is he to be kept out of his money?
  COLONEL SEELY: He is not being kept out of it.

  Transvaal Public Service.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will lay upon the Table the Return showing the names of individuals retrenched from the public service of the Transvaal from 1st April, 1908, to 15th June, 1908, which was laid upon the Table of the Legislative Assembly of Pretoria on the 1st July, 1908.
  COLONEL SEELY: I see that a Return of the nature referred to has been laid, but it has not yet been received. There is not likely to be any reason why it should not be laid here, unless it is very bulky and expensive to print, but in accordance with custom I cannot promise a Paper which has not been received.

  British Indian Traders in the Transvaal.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under-secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the arrest and imprisonment in the Transvaal of some thirteen British-Indian traders for trading without licences; whether these traders tendered the licence money, which was refused with the above consequences because they declined to comply with the formalities of I the registration law; whether these men were residents before the war, already holding certificates of identification and possessed of a clean record; and whether the Secretary of State will make friendly representations to the Government of the Transvaal with a view to their speedy liberation.
  COLONEL SEELY: According to a telegram from the Governor of the Transvaal the Asiatics lately prosecuted have been proceeded against for contravention of the licensing laws and not of the Asiatic registration legislation. The men were found by the licensing officers to be trading without licences, and the prosecutions were undertaken at the instance of the municipal authorities. Further inquiry will be made into this matter.

  White Labour on the Rand.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can give particulars of any case in which work which was being done on the Rand and mines by Chinese coolies, since repatriated, is now being performed by white labour; and, if no such particulars are available at the Colonial Office, will he make inquiries from the Transvaal Government if there are any such cases.
  COLONEL SEELY: No, Sir, but inquiry shall be made of the Transvaal Government.

  The Gilbert Islands.
  MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is aware that grave charges have been made against the Resident Commissioner in the Gilbert group of islands in the Western Pacific, notably in compelling the natives to labour without wages on public works and on the phosphate concession held by a private company, of which Lord Stanmore is chairman, in inflicting flogging for disobedience or dilatoriness, in collecting taxes from the natives in copra or cocoanut kernel, which is their staple food, notwithstanding that the phosphate company are said to be making from £80,000 to £100,000 a year clear profit from the guano which the natives collect for them; that these and other statements are sworn to by a late resident in the Gilbert Islands, and confirmed by missionaries and by three influential natives, who have presented a petition of complaint since the submission of his Report by Sir J. M. Thurm, the High Commission, in 1906; and whether, in view of these allegations, the Secretary of State for the Colonies will cause an independent inquiry to be made on the spot by some person or persons unconnected with the administration of the Western Pacific Islands.
  COLONEL SEELY: Certain charges of of the nature indicated by my honourable friend have been made by a former official of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Protectorate, but the Secretary of State has not at present received any confirmation of these charges by missionaries and natives of the Protectorate. The High Commissioner will be asked to send home any petition which he may have received from the Natives on the subject, and the Secretary of State also hopes to have the opportunity of conferring with him personally when he comes home in the autumn.

  Egyptian Schools and English Teachers.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Egyptian Ministry of Public Instruction has called upon its English teachers of mathematics and science to qualify themselves either to teach those subjects in Arabic, or to teach history or geography, which latter subjects are still to be taught in English; and, if
  1752
  so, whether he will advise the British Consul-General in Egypt to represent to the Egyptian Government that the teachiny of history and geography in Arabic in the Egyptian schools is also advisable.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): I have no information as to whether the Egyptian Ministry of Public Instruction has made a demand of the nature indicated on its English teachers of mathematics and science, but I will address an inquiry on the subject to His Majesty's Acting Agent and Consul-General at Cairo. As regards the present position of Arabic as a medium of instruction in mathematics and geography, I beg to refer the hon. Member to Sir Eldon Gorst's Report for 1907 (Egypt No. 1, 1908) page 32, paragraph 2, and page 35, paragraph 2, in which it appears that the number of subjects in which instruction in Arabic is being given is being increased.
  MR. ASHLEY: Is not this instruction given in Arabic at the present time?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I cannot say without reference to the Report. I know one or two subjects have been added.
  MR. REES: Is it likely that properly qualified teachers in mathematics and science can be obtained if Arabic is insisted upon?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The question is a very difficult one to deal with, but I think teaching in Arabic should be encouraged as far as possible.

  Brigandage in Turkey.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an official circular has recently been issued to British subjects residing in Turkey informing them that, in the event of their capture by brigands, under no circumstances will His Majesty's Government advance any funds whatever for their release; whether any similar circular has been issued by other Governments to their subjects; and is he aware that this circular will have the effect of preventing the employment of engineers, foremen, and others of

  1753
  British nationality in the provinces of Turkey.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is that the attention of British subjects residing in Turkey has been drawn to a circular issued by the late Lord Granville in 1881 in the sense stated by the hon. Member. With regard to the second part, I have no information as to what action, if any, may have been taken by other Governments. I have no reason to suppose that the circular had any prejudicial effect before or that its repetition now will have the effect mentioned by the hon Member in the third part of his Question.

  German Arrest of the Trawler "General.''
  SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has placed before the German Government the case of the illegal arrest of the steam trawler "General "by the German gunboat "Zeeder "on 9th May last; whether he is aware that the vessel was boarded by a German crew and taken to Cuxhaven, that the captain was imprisoned and the cargo of fish destroyed, and that when tried by the court they proved their innocence and the ship and crew were released; and whether he can state what compensation the German Government intend to award the fishermen and vessel owners for the loss they have sustained.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I am aware of the case referred to by the hon. Member. No claim has yet been presented to the German Government, as I am still awaiting the receipt of the official account of the trial and other material, but the matter is receiving careful consideration.
  EARL WINTERTON: Is it not the fact that in these cases foreign Governments acquaint our Government with the trial and its sequel?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Where it is a matter of importance we instruct our Consuls to watch the case and report to us.
  SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY: Have you had any report in this case?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I am expecting a full report in a week or so.

  German Arrest of the Trawler "Taurus"
  SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state what compensation (if any) the German Government propose to award to the captain and crew and the owners of the steam trawler "Taurus," which was illegally arrested by a German torpedo boat while fishing off the German coast on 14th May last; and whether he can state what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take to protect British fishermen while discharging these duties in these waters, and also to prevent these infringements of international Law by German naval officers.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The trial of the master of the "Taurus "has not yet taken place. Until it has, and I have been informed of the result, it is impossible for me to make any statement on the subject. The trial was originally fixed for 15th June last, but as the master did not appear on that day it has been postponed to 24th August.

  Imprisonment of Mr. Tchaikovsky in St. Petersburg.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. Tchaikovsky, who has for the past eight months been a prisoner in the fortress of St. Peter and St. Paul, St. Petersburg; whether he can say if any charge has been preferred against the accused or when he is likely to be brought to trial; and whether, as Mr. Tchaikovsky has been for thirty years a resident in Great Britain, where his family still reside and practice their professions, and where Mr. Tchaikovsky has not only borne an excellent character but earned a high reputation in the world of letters, he will make such representations as will ensure that Mr. Tchaikovsky may either be brought to trial or be released from confinement and allowed to return to his home in London.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Mr. Tchaikovsky is not a British subject, and the matter is therefore not one in which official action could be taken.

  Persian Imports of Arms—Proposed Russian Loan.
  MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a large quantity of arms has recently entered Persia via the Caspian for the use of Colonel Liakhoff and the Royalist Party in the suppression of the reform movement in Persia; can he state whether a loan to the Shah by Russia is under negotiation; and, if so, whether, in the view of His Majesty's Government, such separate action on the part of one of the signatories of the Anglo-Russian Convention would be in consonance with the spirit of that Convention.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: As regards the first part of the hon. Member's Question, I have no information to this effect. The reply to the second part is in the negative, and there is therefore no occasion to comment upon it.

  Colonel Liakhoff's Action in Teheran.
  MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received information as to the part played by Colonel Liakhoff in the suppression of the Persian Parliament; is it a fact that last December the representatives in the Persian capital of Great Britain and Russia pressed upon the Shah the advice to remain faithful to his promise solemnly made to the popular assembly, that he would observe the constitution, one of the articles of which provides that the royal orders will be sanctioned only when they have received the signature of a responsible minister; were the orders issued to Colonel Liakhoff, which resulted in the sack of the Parliament House, countersigned in this manner; and on what grounds does the Russian Government justify the suppression by a Russian officer of the popular assembly, to which Russia and Great Britain had urged the Shah to remain faithful.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have no more information now than I had when the hon. Member last asked Questions on these points; nor do I see how I can usefully add to the general explanation and expression of opinion which I gave on Monday.
  MR. LYNCH: Seeing these events occurred more than five weeks ago, will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to get the information before Parliament rises?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Even if I had the information I am not at all sure I should be able to add to the statement I made last Monday, when the hon. Member had a full opportunity of stating his views, and I replied on the general circumstances of the case.

  Increase in Lunacy.
  Mr. CARLILE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the Report of the Lunacy Commissioners for 1907 states on page 5 that the rate of increase in certified lunatics was equivalent to 237·2 percent, over the figures for 1859, and that the general population increase for the same period was at the rate of 77·5 per cent., he can see his way to cause inquiries to be made as to the causes of this continued and large percentage of increase of certified lunatics.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I beg to answer this Question on behalf of my right hon. friend. As pointed out on pages 8 and 9 of the Report of the Commissioners, there are many considerations to be borne in mind in interpreting the figures as to lunacy; and I would also call attention to the special Report of the Commissioners on the alleged increase of insanity issued in 1897. The whole question is receiving careful consideration, and the Government will no doubt receive assistance from the Report of the Royal Commission on the Feeble-Minded, which will be issued in a few days.

  Provincial Homes Investment Company.
  MR. WALSH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to a case reported on 16th June, in which the evidence showed that a policeman named Wilkinson, acting as agent for a company entitled the Provincial Homes Investment Company, had induced a woman named Poynton to subscribe sums amounting to £37 10s. to

  1757
  the said company; whether he is aware that Judge Parry stated that the company was really and essentially a fraudulent concern; whether it is in accordance with police office regulations for constables to act as agents of societies; and, if not, will he take steps to prevent similar action by police officers in future.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am making inquiry in the matter, and in the meantime I am not in a position to express any opinion as to the part taken by Wilkinson in the case.

  Motor 'Bus Breakdowns.
  MR. S. COLLINS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give a Return showing the number of motor 'buses that broke down within the area of the county of London during the last twelve months.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I regret that I am unable to give the information desired. No official figures as to breakdowns are compiled, and it would be very difficult to define breakdowns so as to distinguish them from temporary stoppages, due to the need of adjusting brakes, replenishing the supply of water in the radiator, etc.

  Illicit Hawking of Beer.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the sentence of a fine of £50 or three months imprisonment recently passed by the Brentford bench of magistrates upon a man named Swallow for supplying a bottle of beer to a customer whose name had not been entered in his employer's books; whether the man is now undergoing such term of imprisonment; and, if so, whether having regard to the technical character of the offence and to the fact that no previous charge had been made against the man, he will consider the justice of advising a reduction of the sentence.
  MR. GLADSTONE: This was a case of illicit hawking of beer, which cannot be regarded as a merely technical offence. On the contrary, it is in my opinion a serious offence, which is difficult to detect, and when detected, calls for an exemplary penalty. On the information before me, I see no grounds for advising
  1758
  interference with the sentence which the Court in its discretion imposed.

  Metropolitan Police.
  MR. ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it has been usual for the Metropolitan Police Force, when they have been called upon for extremely exceptional duties, to be granted two or three days extra leave; and whether this course was adopted on each occasion of the Royal Jubilee of 1887 and 1897, and at the time of the visit of the Shah of Persia.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Extra leave was given for the Royal Jubilee of 1887, the visit of the Shah in 1889, and on some other occasions; but the grant of this extra leave involved such dislocation of duty that in recent years, with the exception of the Coronation, when both extra pay and extra leave were given, any recognition of extraordinary duties has taken the form of a grant of pay and not a grant of leave.

  Arlesey Asylum Brewery.
  MR. WILES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the fact that the quantity of beer annually brewed in the private brewery attached to the Three Counties Asylum, at Arlesey, has been reduced during the last two years from 32,800 gallons to 17,600 gallons, he will say if he has any official reports showing what the effect has been upon the health of the patients or the staff of this reduction in the consumption of liquor; and, if so, whether he will state their purport to the House.
  MR. GLADSTONE: There is no official report showing what the effect of the reduction in the consumption of beer has been on the health of the patients or the staff at the Three Counties Asylum, but the Commissioners in Lunacy have made inquiry of the Medical Superintendent, who replies that there has been no apparent effect on health.

  International Securities Corporation, Limited.
  MR. WALSH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the remarks of Mr. Justice Swinfen

  1759
  Eady in the case of the International Securities Corporation, Limited, on 23rd July, wherein he described the company as carrying on a business of a peculiarly mischievous character by illegal and fraudulent means, and tempting poor people to part with sums of money by means of seductive and attractive advertisements, and expressed the opinion that the company ought to be wound up at once; and what steps, if any, the Board proposes to take in the matter.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): An order has been made by the Court for the compulsory winding-up of the International Securities Corporation, Limited, and a full investigation is in course of being made by the Official Receiver.

  Shunting Fatality at Leeds
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the death of W. Harris, an under shunter in the employ of the Midland Railway Company at Leeds; whether such death was caused through what is known as gravitation shunting, the men employed having to run to the wagons, and put down hand brakes, when the wagons have reached the level, and are travelling at the rate of 20 miles an hour; and whether, in view of the dangerous practice and the loss of life that must ensue, especially during the winter months of fog and darkness, he will take steps to obviate such danger by reducing the height of the bank down which the wagons have to run, and thus minimise the speed, by insisting on hand brakes to be fixed each side of the wagons, by the ballast between the sidings being improved, and the staff of brakesmen at the danger point being augmented.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The accident referred to has been reported to the Board of Trade by the railway company, and I have directed that an inquiry shall be held.

  Fraudulent Building Societies.
  MR. SEDDON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the business done by the Provincial Homes and other
  1760
  building societies, and the charges implied by Judge Parry against them, he can give any assurance of immediate action to protect the public against alleged fraud.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I must refer my hon. friend to the reply given on the 27th July to my hon. friend the Member for the Prestwich Division. I have directed that a careful examination of the subject be made in order to see whether further legislation is necessary.

  Unemployment Statistics.
  EARL WINTERTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the admitted impossibility of making any accurate comparison between the statistics relating to unemployment in Great Britain and Germany, respectively, given in the Board of Trade Labour Gazette, he will cause the printing of such statistics to be discontinued in the next issue of the journal in question.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Though the official statistics of unemployment in the two countries are not comparable, each series of figures possesses a value as indicating changes of the state of the labour market. I think, therefore, that the figures ought to continue to be published, together with a warning against their misuse.

  Unemployment in Manchester.
  MR. CLYNES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received statements from Manchester showing the increase in the number of unemployed persons in that district and the concern for the difficulties to be faced later in the year; and whether he can undertake to assist the efforts of the local authorities by grants of money to meet their requirements.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I do not find that I have received any recent statement to the effect referred to in the Question. I shall certainly do all I can to administer to the best advantage the sum voted by Parliament in aid of the expenses incurred by the distress committees, so far as it falls to my Department to disburse it.

  Distress at Erith.
  MR. ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the exceptional distress at Erith and the stopping of the works undertaken by the urban district council, he will take steps to urge upon the council the desirability of re-opening the works at an early date.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am in communication on this subject with the urban district council, who will, I have no doubt, take into consideration all the circumstances of the case.
  MR. ROWLANDS: Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the council that they have a balance over from the unemployed fund last year?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Yes, Sir.

  Police Traps for Motorists.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that motorists who are in the habit of exceeding the speed limit frequently complain of the traps set by the police for the detection of such breaches of the law; and whether, in view of these complaints, he will suggest to the local authorities that a preferable method of enforcing the law would be to employ cars provided with an accurate speedometer so that the driver may know when the car is being driven at the precise maximum speed permitted by the law, each such car to carry a police officer in plain clothes with instructions to arrest any car that passes him when he is travelling at the maximum speed and to prosecute the owner or driver for exceeding the speed-limit.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The somewhat expensive method of checking breaches of the speed-limit which my hon. friend suggests does not commend itself to me, and I do not think it is one that I could recommend to police authorities for their adoption.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the simple suggestion made by a noble Lord in another place?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I will take them all into consideration.

  Refusal of a Charter to Eastbourne.
  MR. BEAUMONT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that, after the town of Eastbourne had applied under the Local Government Act, 1888, to be created a county borough, the town authorities at the request of the Local Government Board took a special census of the inhabitants, which showed a population of over 50,000; and, if so, what were the special reasons why the consideration of Eastbourne's application has been either refused or deferred.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am aware of the facts stated in the Question. The informal census taken by the town council showed a population of 50,696 only, and having regard to the small margin of population above 50,000 thus shown, it appeared to the Local Government Board that the consideration of the application that Eastbourne should be made a county borough should be deferred until after the next ordinary census, when the precise population would be more accurately ascertained.
  MR. BEAUMONT: Why did the local Government Board insist on putting Eastbourne to the expense of a special census and then decline to abide by the result? Will the right hon. Gentlemen order a special census to be taken by the Registrar-General?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The Local Government Board asked Eastbourne to take a special census believing they would do so accurately, but it was not taken under circumstances which ensured its reliability to the extent which was necessary to justify us in conferring on Eastbourne that which Eastbourne was demanding.
  MR. BEAUMONT: Will the right hon. Gentlemen direct the Registrar-General to take a census which can be relied upon?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I will consider that.

  Oldham Postmen's Wages.
  MR. CLYNES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that postmen in Oldham are paid about 4s. per week less than Manchester, whilst the Board of Trade Returns and other particulars show the cost of living to be slightly higher in the former town; and whether he can consider the case of the Oldham postal servants, on the basis of the memorial they have recently presented, with a view to raising their scale of pay.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): Oldham and Manchester have been classed in accordance with the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee as explained in the Parliamentary Paper, "Post Office (Changes in Wages, etc.)," pages 54 et seq. The classification is based on the volume of work subject to modification where the cost of living is especially high or low. The number of units of work representing the volume of work at Oldham is 409, which places it naturally in Class III., the units of which range from 240 to 800. The cost of living in Oldham is just under normal, so that it remains in Class III. At Manchester there are no less than 9,612 units of work, and Class I. scales are therefore appropriate; while the cost of living is only slightly below the normal. Of course my hon. friend clearly understands that no existing established officers are adversely affected by an alteration in scale. They all go to their old maximum and enjoy all benefits that may be derived from the improved stripe system, Bank holidays, night work, etc.
  MR. CLYNES: Has not the right hon. Gentleman promised to consider specially any cases in which it can be shown that the calculations were made on a wrong basis?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: If any such information is forwarded I will consider it.
  MR. CLYNES: I understood that a memorial had been sent in.

  Putney Telephone Exchange.
  SIR HENRY KIMBER: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the Post Office telephone exchange at Putney
  1764
  is so obsolete or ineffective that it is impossible for the General Post Office to give to an ordinary table instrument an extension, as the National Telephone Company does in the same district; and whether he will say what action he is going to take in the matter.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The number of subscribers to the Post Office telephone exchange at Putney is increasing so rapidly that a new exchange is being provided for their accommodation, but I am glad to say that the exchange is neither obsolete or ineffective in any other respect. The hon. Member's question must, I think, be based on a misapprehension of the circumstances of some particular case. If he will give me particulars of the case I shall be glad to have it fully investigated.

  Government Pensions.
  MR. MILDMAY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that the recipients of old-age pensions will be paid weekly, he will consider the desirability of arranging that all other persons at present in receipt of Government pensions payable through the Post Office shall be paid weekly.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Post Office pensioners in receipt of pensions of less than £80 a year already have the option of weekly payment if they received weekly wages before superannuation. All other Post Office pensioners are paid monthly or quarterly, and I do not propose to alter this arrangement. Army and Navy pensioners are paid at Post Offices by means of Money Orders issued monthly or quarterly by the War Office and the Admiralty. I am not, of course, responsible, in the case of these pensions, for anything beyond the cashing of the Orders, and have no control over the period of payment.

  Royal London Friendly Society.
  MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies is aware that an agreement has been arrived at between the supporters and opponents of the conversion of the Royal London Friendly Society into a mutual insurance company; whether he can state the terms of that agreement; whether the Chief Registrar

  1765
  has yet confirmed the conversion; and, if not, whether he can state when he is likely to do so.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,): I understand that a meeting took place on the 22nd instant between the representatives of the Society of the National Union of Insurance Agents and of certain collectors, at which terms of agreement favourable to the dissentient collectors were offered by the Society and provisionally accepted, but I have not been informed how far these terms have been ratified. The main point conceded was that collectors should be guaranteed the market price for their books if they received notice to leave for any cause except "wilful dishonesty." I must, however, refer the hon. Member to the Society if he wishes to have a copy of the terms themselves. The Chief Registrar proposes to register the Resolutions to morrow.
  MR. CLOUGH: Has all idea of testing the legality of the poll been abandoned?
  MR. HOBHOUSE: That is a matter which does not concern the Treasury. It rests entirely with the members of the Society.
  MR. LUPTONasked if those who voted for the conversion had their costs paid out of the funds of the society while the opponents paid their own expenses.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir. I have inquired and find that the society's funds were not used for that purpose.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, having regard to the recent conversion, of the Royal London Friendly Society, he will consider the possibility of presenting a Bill amending the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, section 54 of which confers the absolute right upon wealthier societies to convert themselves into companies and so destroy the benefits in the Act specially designed for the use of the industrial community.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir. His Majesty's Government has no intention pf amending the Friendly Societies Act
  1766
  further than is provided in the Bill which has recently been read a third time in this House and is now under consideration in the House of Lords.
  MR. O'GRADY: Was not the effect of this conversion a considerable fall in the value of shares?
  MR. HOBHOUSE: That does not affect the Treasury, which has no power over that at all.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that an application was presented to the Registrar of Friendly Societies on the 18th day of June last asking the Registrar to appoint inspectors to inquire into the matters connected with the attempt to convert the Royal London Society into a mutual company, and that, as yet, no such inquiry has been ordered or directed; and whether steps will be taken at once to institute such inquiry.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: The Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies informs me that he has refused this application on the ground that the applicants did not shew sufficient cause for an inspection as is required by subsection 2 of Section 76 of the Act.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that provision has been made in the new constitution of the Royal London Mutual Insurance Society, Limited, to take 30 per cent. of the premium income of the society (exclusive of commission paid to collectors) for management expenses, and that the total premium income is £1,000,000; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the affairs connected with such conversion, with a view of amending the Friendly Societies Act to prevent such conversion of friendly societies by laying down a draft code of rules and incorporating them in an amended Act.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: The first part of this Question concerns the Board of Trade. I have already replied to the second part of the Question.

  Reorganisation of the Customs.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary to

  1767
  the Treasury whether, in the coming amalgamation of the Customs and Excise, all officers of Customs, clerical or practical, who have reached the age of sixty-two, will be called upon to retire, as is done in the Excise service at the present time; and whether facilities for retirement on advantageous terms will be given to officers who desire to take up their superannuation rather than accept service in the new department.
  I beg also to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a position or positions under the combined Board of Excise and Customs have been offered, directly or indirectly, to highly placed Excise officials; whether he is aware that there is a belief in the Excise and Customs services that an effort is being made, by the offer of desirable positions to highly placed Excise officials, to buy off the opposition to the amalgamation; and whether he will consider the desirability of abandoning a scheme which has to be carried through by such methods.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: In reply to this Question and to the Question on the same subject which the hon. Member has addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I beg to inform him that I am not in a position to anticipate the decision hereafter to be reached on the details of the forthcoming amalgamation of the Customs and Excise services.

  Ballinorley (Sligo) Teacher's Residence.
  MR. MCHUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether a loan was obtained from the Board of Works, Ireland, through the Commissioners of National Education, for the erection of a teacher's residence at Ballinorley, county Sligo; what amount remains outstanding, and whether payments for principal and interest on the loan have still twelve years to run; is he aware that the Commissioners of National Education have struck the Ballinorley school off the roll; and, as the residence will now become vacant if the school is closed, will he state how he proposes to collect the amount outstanding for principal and interest.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: The Commissioners of Public Works inform me that a loan was obtained from them for the erection of a teacher's residence at Ballinorley,
  1768
  county Sligo, of which the amount outstanding is £39 1s. 9d., the payment in respect of principal and interest having still twelve years to run. It is the case that the Commissioners of National Education have struck Ballinorley school off the roll, but the residence in connection with the school will not become vacant. It has been let by the manager for nearly four years to a person other than the teacher, and the manager pays the Board's rent-charge. In any case a former manager and two sureties (or their personal representatives) who entered with him, in the year 1885, into a bond to secure the repayments, are liable.

  Miltown Evicted Tenants.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received and considered applications for reinstatement, as evicted tenants, from John Bacon, evicted from the lands of Milltown, on the Castle Archdale estate, and John Cassidy, evicted from the lands of Aughnagaffert, on the Aileen estate; and will these men be reinstated or supplied with new holdings.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): The Estates Commissioners have received and considered the applications referred to. In the case of John Bacon, the Commissioner considered the applicant to be unsuitable to manage a farm, and moreover the evicted holding is in the occupation of a tenant purchaser. John Cassidy is already in temporary possession of the holding from which he was evicted, and the Commissioners will further consider his case when the estate on which the holding is situate comes before them.

  Clovelly Evicted Tenants.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have acquired any land in county Fermanagh upon which they can allot a holding to John Graham, of Barmagh, Clovelly, country Fermanagh, an evicted tenant already considered by the Commissioners as a suitable person to have a holding allotted to him.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have not yet acquired any untenanted lands upon which they could provide a holding for John Graham, but they are in negotiation for the purchase of certain land in the county, and, if they should acquire this land, Graham's claim will be considered in connection with it.

  Ballinorley National School.
  MR. MCHUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education for Ireland have struck off the roll the Protestant national school of Ballinorley, County Sligo, of which the manager is the Rev. John Roche Ardill, LL.D., canon, Protestant rector of Calry parish; is he aware that this school has been established for more than a century, and that it has been on the roll of the Board for thirty years; that this school is three miles distant from the nearest Protestant school; and that if it is closed Protestant children living in Ballinorley will be obliged to walk a distance of four miles on the average to the nearest school under Protestant management and a like distance returning homo from school; is he aware that the Board's rule 179 (c) provides for the closing of a school under Protestant management only when it is within two miles distance of one or more schools under the management of any Protestant denomination; whether, seeing that the Compulsory Education Act of 1892 assumes that in all cases where it applies there is a school in which both secular and religious instruction are given within two miles measured by the nearest road from the residence of the child, and provided that the school grant should be paid to schools having an average attendance of ten or more pupils, and that the average in Ballinorley school for last year was thirteen, the Commissioners are empowered to make rules and orders over-riding an Act of Parliament; and will he make representations to the Commissioners with a view to having the case of Ballinorley school reconsidered.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the school in question was struck off the roll of national schools on 26th April last, because it was not required in the locality and the average attendance for the years 1906 and 1907 was only thirteen. The
  1770
  school has been under the National Board since 1876. There is a national school under Protestant management two and a half miles away, and there is also one under Roman Catholic management about half a mile away. Rule 179 (c), which applies to Protestant and Catholic schools alike, deals with the appointment of new teachers in schools with an average daily attendance of less than twenty-five. The rule under which the Commissioners acted in this case was Rule 189, which provides that, as a general rule, a national school, in order to continue to be recognised by the Commissioners, must have an annual average daily attendance of at least twenty pupils. The Irish Education Act of 1892 contains no provision which requires payment of the school grant to be made to any elementary school that does not fulfil the require of the Commissioners' rules and regulations, and in any event the Act is not in force in the district in question. The whole question as to small schools, distinguishing between those which may be suppressed without any real injury, and those which cannot be so suppressed, will, I hope, immediately engage the attention of the National Board.
  MR. ASHLEY: Where are these thirteen children to be educated?
  MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of course proceed on the assumption that they can go to another school. There is a Protestant school two and a half miles away and also a Roman Catholic school, and it is assumed the children can attend either of those schools.
  MR. SLOAN: Is it not the fact that the National Commissioners of Education in Ireland accepted the grant of £114,000 because the result of a refusal would have been the closing of 225 small schools? Seeing that this school has been in existence over 100 years and it is fully three miles to the nearest Protestant school, will not the right hon. Gentleman get the case reconsidered?
  MR. BIRRELL: It is no use interrogating me, I am not a member of the Board. As to the grant of £114,000, it must not be lost sight of that the money has been allotted altogether irrespective of the size of the schools. I have no control

  1771
  over the Commissioners; the whole matter rests with them.
  MR. SLOAN: Is it not the fact the National Board have twice refused to agree to the closing down of the 225 Protestant schools?
  MR. BIRRELL: I am not sure of it.
  MR. SLOAN: Well, it is.
  MR. BIRRELL: At any rate the National Board will have an opportunity of stating its views.
  MR. MCHUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Commissioners to reconsider their decision?
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGput a similar Question.
  MR. BIRRELL: I will do the best I can, but I have no control whatever over the Board.
  MR. ASHLEY: But surely the right hon. Gentleman can make representations? I am a Sligo man, and very much interested in this question.
  MR. BIRRELL: If the facts are as stated I have great sympathy with any school which has to be closed, with the result that a number of children are left unprovided with the kind of denominational education they desire. I do not think it is desirable in the present state of public affairs that the children should be required to go to a Roman Catholic school. At the same time, the multiplication of small schools should be avoided.
  MR. MCHUGH: There would not be a multiplication.
  MR. BIRRELL: I do not say there would; but there are a large number of schools in Ireland which might be usefully amalgamated.
  MR. MCHUGH; I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the teacher of Ballinorley national school, County Sligo, applied to the Commissioners of National Education on the 2nd of the present month for a quarter's salary, amounting to £11, due on the 30th June ultimo;
  1772
  whether the Board had written on the 19th May informing the manager that the teacher would be paid up to the 26th April, but not stating that the salary would be discontinued after the latter date; whether on the 26th May the teacher supplied to the Board, at the Board's request and at her expense, a medical certificate to qualify her for the pension fund as if she were still under salary; whether at the end of June the Board called upon her to furnish the quarterly returns up to the last day of that month; whether the first intimation the manager received that the salary was withdrawn was conveyed in a letter from the Commissioners to the manager, dated 6th July instant; and will the salary due to the 30th June be paid without further delay.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the teacher referred to is not a permanent principal teacher, and could not be recognised as such seeing that she has not been trained. She was recognised by the Commissioners, under rule 79, as locum tenens at the school in question for the maximum period of three months, pending the appointment of a permanent teacher, and the manager was so informed. The three months expired on the 26th April last, and salary was paid to that date. Under the rules no further salary can be paid. All teachers have to furnish a medical certificate of health when first recognised.

  Fair Rent Notices.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of originating notices to fix fair rents received by the Irish Land Commission for the years 1890 to 1896, inclusive, and also the numbers of said notices similarly received for the years 1897 to 1903, with the approximate cost of the Commissioners and staff employed during the above two respective periods; and will he state the present costs of the Commissioners and staff annually employed in the rent-fixing department.
  MR. BIRRELL: The number of originating notices to fix fair rents lodged with the Land Commission between 22nd August, 1890, and 1st March, 1896, was 15,061, and the number lodged

  1773
  between the latter date and 31st March, 1903, was 93,924. The Land Commission inform me that it would not be possible, without considerable labour, to state even approximately the expenditure on the fair rent side of their business for the thirteen years in question. Moreover, a comparison as regards cost between the two periods referred to could not fairly be made, seeing that the system of fixing fair rents underwent considerable change by the Act of 1896. The Commissioners cannot make a close estimate of the present cost of the fair rent staff, but they think it may be stated at approximately £45,000 per annum, exclusive of the salaries of Judicial Commissioners, which are charged on the Consolidated Fund.

  The All-Red Route.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the pledges given by the late Prime Minister and to the imminence of the adjournment, he can now give any assurance to the House that the Government will not commit the House to any subsidies in support of what is called the all-red route before Parliament has had the opportunity of discussing the subject.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): I can only repeat the assurance of the late Prime Minister that if, on examination, any such scheme was found to be feasible, no arrangement would be binding until approved by the House of Commons.

  Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill.
  MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to revive the defunct Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill, or to introduce a measure to effect the same objects, but on different lines.
  MR. ASQUITH: No further legislation on this subject can be attempted during the present session, and it would be premature at this moment to anticipate the future.
  MR. WEIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Lord Chancellor has declared this Bill to be defnnct?
  MR. ASQUITH: If so, he was stating an obvious fact.
  MR. SMEATON: Will the new Bill resemble the defunct measure?
  [No Answer was returned.]

NEW BILLS.
  WHITE PHOSPHORUS MATCHES PROHIBITION BILL.
  "To prohibit the manufacture, sale and importation of matches made with white phosphorus, and for other purposes in connection therewith," presented by Mr. Secretary Gladstone; supported by Mr. Herbert Samuel; to be read a second time upon Monday, 12th, October, and to be printed. [Bill 351.]
TRAWLING IN PROHIBITED AREAS PREVENTION BILL.
"To prohibit the landing and selling in the United Kingdom of fish caught in prohibited areas of the sea adjoining Scotland," presented by Mr. Sinclair; supported by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland; to be read a second time upon Monday, 12th October, and to be printed. [Bill 352.]
CROFTERS' COMMONS GRAZINGS REGULATION BILL.
"To extend the powers of the Crofters' Commission in regard to the regulation of common grazings," presented by Mr. Sinclair; supported by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland; to be read a second time upon Monday, 12th October, and to be printed. [Bill 353.]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
"To amend the Law relating to county government, and to roads and bridges and the use of locomotives thereon, in Scotland," presented by Mr. Sinclair; supported by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland; to be read a second time upon Monday 12th October, and to be printed. [Bill 354.]

TRANSFER OF GOODS BILL.
"To amend the law relating to the transfer of goods," presented by Mr. Dundas White; supported by Sir George

1775
M'Crae, Mr. Younger, Mr. Phipson Beale, Mr. M'Callum, and Mr. Smeaton; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 14th October, and to be printed. [Bill 356.]

OLD-AGE PENSIONS BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 355.]
IRISH UNIVERSITIES BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 358.]
WHALE FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Lords Amendment to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 361.]
TELEGRAPH CONSTRUCTION BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 360.]
BEE PEST (IRELAND) BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 359].

PORT OF LONDON BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Joint Committee, with Minutes of Evidence.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 288.]
Bill, as amended, re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday, 12th October, and to be printed. [Bill 350.]

COMMONS BILL [LORDS].
Read the first time; to be road a second time upon Monday, 12th October, and to be printed. [Bill 357.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PRIVATE BUSINESS.)
Motion made, and Question proposed—"That the Proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at 8.15 this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways may be entered upon at any hour, and be not interrupted under any Standing Order regulating the sittings of the House."—(Mr. Asquith.)
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid he understood that notice was rendered necessary by Standing Order 8. It was a Motion which might be put to very questionable uses. The Standing Order was rather new, and it might be serious to suspend it so soon after it was made. He thought it would be justified if not to help these Bills forward would be to inflict any loss on the parties concerned, but it must be remembered that they were going to have an Autumn Session, and this was a case of a Provisional Order Bill in which the expense was incurred on the local inquiries, and it was not likely to be increaed by delay at this stage. What he said applied to four Bills, and he was a total stranger to all of them, and in respect to three of them which had come from the other House he was not given to understand that there was any object to their being put forward; but as regards the fourth, information reached him which he thought required to be answered to the effect that it had gone forward with such rapidity that the Report Stage was taken on 27th July, consideration on 28th July, and that it stood for Third Reading on 29th July—yesterday, without the opponents to the Bill, who were substantial and important, having an opportunity of making themselves acquainted with the Amendments made. He understood that the Amendments had not been printed and circulated, and it was quite possible that substantial injustice might be done by this exceptional measure of putting forward the Bill. He thought some reason should be shown for this special procedure, and that they ought not to have a Motion made without some explanation being given.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid it was refreshing for him to find himself in thorough accord with the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, and he thought the Premier himself should treat the House more fairly in this respect. The Prime Minister, in asking the House that there should be only a limited time for the discussion of the action of certain Government spending departments and executive departments like the Home Office, said that the House would have full opportunity of discussing the matters on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill, which was the only time when a private Member, with

1777
possibly a fad of his own, could make himself heard, and now what happened? Here were these Bills, private Bills, introduced under an order the like of which he never remembered. It seemed that the Chairman of Committees could intervene at any time and say that private business might begin and go on as long as they liked. That was not a proper or a right way to deal with private Members, but there was something more. What was the necessity for the Motion? They were to have an Autumn Session. These Bills were set down for Second Reading, and therefore they would not come to a completion one minute before the proper and ordinary time. The Motion was only a contrivance to take a very considerable slice of the miserable portion of time allotted to private Members; while at the same time that portion of time was promised to be generously and even excessively given if hon. Members would submit, as they did on the previous night, to allow the Home Office and other Votes to be discussed in two hours and ten minutes. It was in the belief that they would have ample time to edge in a word that day that the House permitted that, and now, on private Members' day, the opportunity was taken from them. If he had even one person only to tell with him, he would divide on the Question.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): I quite agree that this is an exceptional Motion, and that it ought to be justified by exceptional reasons, but I think the reasons which induced the Government to put it down and to move it ought to commend themselves to the House. The three Bills which are appointed for consideration at 8.15 p.m. by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means are all Electricity Supply Bills connected with the Metropolis. These three Bills are absolutely cognate in their subject matter, and to a very large extent the same considerations apply to the discussion of their merits on the Second Reading with regard to any one of the three. They were put down for Monday, but we thought it undesirable to interfere with the allotted days for the discussion of Supply, and it was for that reason that they were postponed until to-night. I am told that they stand or fall upon very much the same argu-
1778
ments, and that it will be a waste of time to take them separately, and it was for that reason that we propose to suspend the operation of the new rule, which would prevent any one of these Bills being entered upon for discussion after 9.30 p.m. A further reason for the Motion I have put down is that the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule only applies to Government business, and therefore it was necessary, in the event of the discussions on these Bills continuing after eleven o'clock, that special provision should be made. It was suggested by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last that the Bills might be postponed till the Autumn Session, but I am told that that would be a source of great inconvenience to all the parties concerned. If the Bills are now read a second time they will in the beginning of the Autumn Session be sent upstairs and considered by a Committtee, and having regard to the magnitude of the interests involved, the long delay that has already taken place, and the importance of the thorough discussion of all the details, I believe it is the universal opinion of all the parties interested that we should get the decision of the House on the merits of the Bills before we rise for the holidays. The other point raised was with regard to a Bill which stands on a different footing, the Potteries Provisional Orders Bill. The only reason, I am told by my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board, why this Bill is put down and included in the scope of my Motion, is that it is a convenience that we should get a clean print of the measure now, so that between now and October the amended Bill can be printed. However, if it is objected to, the Third Reading can be taken in October. The main point is in regard to the three Electrical Bills, and I hope, as far as they are concerned, the House will agree to the Motion.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that it was not in regard to the merits of these Bills that they took objection to the procedure which the Government proposed to adopt. It was practically impossible for the House to come to a just decision upon the merits of private Bills. They really depended, not upon speeches made or general cases advanced in the House, but upon the evidence given before the Committee, and one of the objects which his right hon.

1779
friend had in view in moving the Standing Order governing the conduct of private Bills was to give the greatest possible incentive to what he would call the settlement out of Court of difficulties between contending parties on a private Bill. The step the Government were taking prejudiced to a certain degree the step which the Leader of the Opposition took, which had always been regarded as one of the greatest and most beneficial reforms in regard to the passing of private Bills. It was not at all difficult, if anybody desired to do so, to delay the progress of a Bill without doing anything improper. Once it became understood that a private Bill had only to be delayed in its progress in order to obtain advantages denied to the promoters of other Bills during the Session, then the House would realise that the change proposed was a very serious one in the system of private Bill procedure. The Prime Minister, the other day, in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Waterford said, in regard to the time which had been given for Supply, that the hon. and learned Member might rely upon it that no precedent was being created by the giving of less time for the discussion of the Irish Estimates. But the most powerful Prime Minister of recent years with a vast majority behind him could not possibly prevent a precedent being created if he took a step never taken before and the House sanctioned it. There were no special circumstances which justified this Motion, which, if pressed, would make a serious innovation in private Bill procedure which might be extended with disastrous results in future Sessions. The House had been told that there were three Electric Bills, but he himself was given to understand that there was considerable difference between them, and that the arguments used for and against the first need not necessarily apply to either of the others. The Prime Minister had stated that the first Bill might last until 9.30 p.m. and that the other Bills would not be taken, and that, therefore, there could not possibly be any objection to this Motion being accepted. But let the House mark one thing. There was always the indefeasible right of the House to debate any subject on the Second Reading of the Appropriation
1780
Bill. Many questions which might give rise to considerable debate would be raised by hon. Members, and there was litle enough time for their discussion of the Second Reading if the Appropriation Bill was to be carried in one sitting. The right hon. Gentleman said the private Bill might go on till 9.30 p.m. That estimate might be correct, but if after that time they proceeded with Bills raising quite different debates, what time would be left for a discussion of the Government's general policy, which the House had a right to discuss, and which could only be discussed on this occasion? In his opinion a Motion of this kind ought only to have been moved after full notice had been given of it so that the whole House might know what they were doing. Not only should notice have been given by placing the Motion on the Paper some days previously, but distinct warning should have been given through the usual channels that a new procedure was to be adopted. In these circumstances he felt it was impossible that this Motion should pass without challenge, and he should certainly when the Question was put from the Chair, vote against it on the ground that it was a serious innovation in the procedure of the House, which had not been justified by any of the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. ASQUITHsaid he had listened with attention and he need not say with great respect, to what the right hon. Gentleman had said. He could only say that he had proposed the Motion in the belief that it was consonant with the general wish and opinion of the House. But the Government did not intend to use their majority to take away the liberty of private Members in the exercise of a right which they at present possessed. He had been of opinion that this was a question of the general convenience of hon. Members, but after the appeal made to him by the right hon. Gentleman he did not feel disposed to press the question. The result would be that the first Bill would come on that evening, but he hoped that the discussion would not be prolonged. Afterwards they would resume the debate on the Appropriation

1781
Bill. He was very sorry that this should be so, because he was afraid that there would be a certain amount of delay in dealing with an urgent question. But on behalf of the Government he would try to make that delay as short as possible by putting the other two Bills down at the opening of the autumn sittings. He would, therefore, withdraw his Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS).
Ordered, That Mr. Barlow be added to the Committee.—(Mr. Joseph Pease.)

CONSOLIDATED FUND APPROPRIATION) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is in accordance with the practice of the House on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill that we should take occasion to survey the work of the session and to deal with any of those questions for which opportunity for discussion has not been granted in the ordinary course of our procedure. There are some criticisms on the Government methods which I should like to make as to their conduct of business and the principles on which they said they meant to deal with it before coming into office. I cannot have a better starting point than the speech made by the Prime Minister to his constituency a few weeks before he took office. The right hon. Gentleman made that speech with a full knowledge of the Parliamentary situation. He had nothing to learn about the methods of conducting the business of the House and of the difficulties which lie in the way of conducting it, of the limitations that are inevitable on the liberty and privileges of debate, and upon all the complex questions which are now puzzling and perplexing every section of the House. The right hon. Gentleman laid down
1782
certain principles which I think I shall adequately present to the House by reading two extracts. The first of these relates to the closure of Supply under the Standing Order passed by the late Government, and which the right hon. Gentleman in the last few months, I believe, has declared to be one of the greatest reforms ever introduced in the procedure of the House, of Commons. This was his opinion expressed earlier in the session, but it was not his opinion in October, 1905. The right hon. Gentleman said—
"The theory of the Constitution is that you, the electors, send us, your representatives, to the House of Commons in order that we may check and control the expenditure of public money. What is the practice? I will give you the figures of the last two years. In 1904, under the operation of the Supply closure, or guillotine, £31,000,000 was voted, and not one item had ever been discussed; and this year, 1905, that £31,000,000 had under the same conditions risen to no less than £50,000,000."
I will interrupt my quotation here to give the House the items of the last two years as compared with the £31,000,000 and the £50,000,000 of the late Government. They are £45,000,000 and £53,000,000, and these sums have been passed undiscussed by the House. I will now resume the quotation from the right hon. Gentleman's speech—
"What is the use of pretending that we live under a constitutional system and that the House of Commons has a real control over the finances of the country?…I say this, and I want to impress this view on the public mind, that this is a most serious state of things, for it amounts to nothing more nor less than a progressive paralysis of the Parliamentary organism."
Then a little later on he says—
"Another result, and an equally serious one, is that the Executive Government of the day by the joint operation of the guillotine and the block becomes every year, both as to legislation and as to policy, more and more emancipated from the control of Parliament. That may be convenient for the holders of office for the time being, but in the long run it is bad for the Executive, it is degrading to Parliament, and it is injurious and even perilous to the Empire. In my opinion, therefore—and this is the conclusion to which I wish this narrative to lead—one of the primary duties of a Liberal Government and of a Liberal Party will be to supply a remedy, and to restore efficiency and dignity to our Legislature at Westminster."
How have a Liberal Administration and a Liberal Party supplied a remedy

1783
or restored efficiency and dignity to our Legislature at Westminster? As regards the voting of Supply under the closure Resolutions, more money has been voted without discussion than under the late Administration. As regards blocking notices, the right hon. Gentleman, I believe, has put down a Resolution which he thinks will do something to remedy that state of things. But he has not allowed us a night to discuss it; and I venture to say that if the primary duty of a Liberal Administration and a Liberal Parliament is to be discharged by putting down on the Paper Resolutions dealing with these important matters and not giving us time to discuss them, then the duty falls very lightly on the Gentlemen who have undertaken it. The right hon. Gentleman has done much worse. He complained three years ago that these blocking notices prevented the discussion on the adjournment of the House of important matters. But the right hon. Gentleman spends his life in bringing forward closure by compartment Motions under which nothing can be discussed except the particular Bill dealt with. Consider the situation of the House now in regard to these closure Resolutions. As the House is aware, while the late Government had closure by compartments three times in ten years the present Government have had closure by compartments ten times in three sessions. The figures are identical but they are differently placed; and I shall be very much gratified if under the right hon. Gentleman's leadership we get to the end of the autumn session without the ten being increased to eleven, twelve, or thirteen. The right hon. Gentleman, in addition to this absolute destruction of the legitimate discussion in Committee on the Bill, prevents by his procedure anything being done in the way of discussion upon Motions for adjournment. I believe that for the first time in our Parliamentary history we are going to meet on 12th October with our liberties already taken away from us, and without the smallest power of raising any question on the adjournment of the House, however important the topic, however great the interest, however urgent the necessity. What are blocking notices compared
1784
with disabilities of that kind? They sink into absolute insignificance; and the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, if he surveys what has been done under his administration, must be aware that one of the primary duties of the Liberal Government and the Liberal House of Commons has been more grossly neglected, and the principles which they have laid down have been abandoned with less scruple and more violence than I think has ever happened in the history of this House. I confess I am amazed at the course the Government have pursued. In order to obtain some temporary cheers at meetings they laid down principles, with full knowledge of the facts, which they not only abandoned but reversed, the very moment power was put into their hands. There is one branch of this subject on which I desire to speak at length, and that is the way in which such discussions as could be allowed under the Supply rule have been curtailed by the present Administration. I have never myself attached much value to the figures which so pleased the right hon. Gentleman in 1905, of the money which is voted without being discussed. I have never believed that discussion in this House on questions in Supply really gives us control over the details of expenditure. In prehistoric times there might have been some control over the expenditure, but there certainly has not been in my Parliamentary experience. What it does do is to give an opportunity for criticising the Executive, and that power is not to be measured by the amount of money which goes undiscussed. It is to be measured, first, by the number of days which are devoted to criticism and discussion, and, in the second place, by the Votes put down by the Government of the day so as to give occasion for that discussion. Here I am bound to say the Opposition have great cause of complaint of the course which the right hon. Gentleman has pursued. He had it in his power to give twenty-three days to Supply; he had it in his power to curtail that period to twenty days. Sometimes the time has been curtailed with advantage. Can any human being say that that power of curtailment has been exercised with advantage this year, or that there is the least justification for

1785
the Government's having given us the smaller number of days? What was the justification given by the right hon. Gentleman when he gave us a sketch of business up to the beginning of August? His justification was that unless the House consented to give up these additional three days we should not be able to rise by 1st August, and that if we did not rise then general inconvenience would follow. I will accept the right hon. Gentleman's promise and will assume with him that the convenience of the House, which after all must be consulted, was such that it would have been an outrage to have asked us, seeing when we have to meet again, to sit into August. But why did the right hon. Gentleman give two days to the Licensing Bill which might have been given to Supply? He had got his closure Resolution on the Licensing Bill; it was absolutely certain it could not take more than twenty-five days. It now is only going to take twenty three days in the autumn session. It would have been no greater strain upon the House to have had the whole twenty-five days in the autumn session, and given us at least two days more for the discussion of Supply. Why the right hon. Gentleman did not take that course he has never explained to the House, and I have been unable to conjecture. The most plausible hypothesis was that it was absolutely necessary to convince a certain section of his supporters that the Government were really in earnest over the Licensing Bill, and that unless they got through the first clause before they separated for the holidays, nobody would put the smallest faith in the promises they had made. I do not know whether that is the reason, but what other reason can there be? The right hon. Gentleman may perhaps urge that we had such a full opportunity of discussion in Supply that more days were not required. If that was his view, he cannot have listened to the lamentation of the Home Secretary last night as to the exiguous portion of time which had been granted to him. I do not know whether the President of the Board of Trade laments that his Vote was not discussed. I rather conjecture that he does not. But there are two Estimates on which really it is little less than a scandal that we have not
1786
had some opportunity of criticising the administration. One of these is the Education Vote. I am not going to deal with that. The whole House will agree that at this time of all others it would have been desirable, and indeed necessary, to allow the House some liberty of debate upon the various methods by which the Government are attempting to solve by executive action problems which the House ought to deal with by legislation, and by legislation alone. There is an even graver question than education, and that is Ireland. Now what have the Government done about Ireland? In the first place, they have cut the customary three days down to two. In the second place, they have refused absolutely on either of these two days to allow the Chief Secretary's salary to be put down, so that the administration of Ireland could be properly discussed in this House. As I understand their excuse is this. They say that the business of the Government is to arrange Supply so as to meet the convenience of Members of the House, and the Members whose convenience is most to be consulted in the matter of Irish Supply are the party which contains a majority of the Irish Members—namely, the Nationalist Party; therefore they mean to arrange Supply so that the Nationalist Party shall discuss exactly what they like, and representatives of Ireland who differ profoundly from the Irish Party shall have no opportunity whatever of discussing Irish administration. I admit, of course, that Irish Members below the gangway take great interest in certain questions which they have a perfect right to discuss, such as Irish education and Irish local government, and the Government are bound to give such opportunities as they have given for the discussion of these matters. But when you come to the administration of the law in Ireland, hon. Gentlemen below the gangway will not accuse me of saying anything offensive when I say they are not the people to decide whether or not an opportunity should be given or discussion. They are not ardent upholders of law and order. They have never shown themselves anxiously critical of the Executive in the direction of seeing hat the law was maintained from one end of the country to the other; and they will not pretend that that has ever been

1787
their principal role in this House. In truth, it is absurd for the Government to treat hon. Gentlemen below the gangway as if they belonged to a separate party and were in the nature of official critics of the Government. Hon. Gentlemen below the gangway are more and more, so far as I can see, coming into a kind of subordinate alliance with the Radical Party at large. [Cries of "No," and an HON. MEMBER: Who told you that?] The observation is my own; it may not be correct; I offer it for what it is worth. What I have observed is this. The Gentlemen who represent the Home Rule constituencies in Ireland are anxious to say no more than they can help about Home Rule in order to keep their friends quiet on the other side of the Channel, while the Radical Party here and there, sometimes using a Cabinet Minister and sometimes not, is talking just as much about Home Rule in the constituencies as will quiet the Irish vote in those constituencies without frightening the English vote. That is a delicate and difficult position; but if I have rightly described it, and I think I have, it evidently prevents hon. Gentlemen below the gangway from taking up the position of independent criticism, such as that which Gentlemen sitting above the gangway naturally and properly occupy. We have had no opportunity of dealing with the administration of Ireland at all in Committee of Supply. Is that because there is nothing to criticise in the Irish administration? Is that because there is no cause of disquiet at the present time with regard to the maintenance of law and order and of personal freedom in that country? The facts which have been put into my hands, and which have been obtained by Question and Answer from the Chief Secretary in the course of the present session, are, in my opinion, of a most alarming character. May I just remind the House and the Chief Secretary of some of the leading features of the existing situation? I notice, for example, that serious outrages in which firearms were used amounted in the first six months of 1906 to 12 cases; in the same period in 1907 to 34 cases; and in 1908 to 76 cases. I am bound to say that the growth from 12 to 76 cases of serious outrages in which firearms were used is a symptom the
1788
gravity of which nobody could afford to ignore; and I think it is made worse, not better, by the fact that, as I take it, the disturbed state of Ireland is not universal—that is, the worst features are not universal but are more or less concentrated in nine or ten counties. I go on to cattle-driving. I observe that the figures of cattle-driving in the first six months of this year exceed the number of cases of cattle-driving for the whole twelve months of last year. There were 381 in 1907. From January to June in 1908 there were 413 cases.
MR. CULLINAN: Did you get these figures from Lord Ashtown?
AN HON. MEMBER: Order.
MR. CULLINAN: Order you. What do you know about it?
*MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to behave himself.
MR. CULLINAN: They are calling order when there is no disorder.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then I come to boycotting, which is one of the most painful social symptoms in that disordered state of the community, and one of the most difficult to deal with, and I notice that according to the figures there were in February, 1907, 20 cases; in February, 1908, 98 cases; in March, 1907, 19 cases; in March, 1908, 90 cases; in April, 1907, 25 cases; and in April, 1908, 104 cases. Not only is the actual growth enormous, but if you compare the figures of 1908 with the previous figures, it is continuous, it goes on from month to month. March is worse than February; April is worse than March. I do not know whether the later figures are more satisfactory, but if they are I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give them to the House. As to intimidation, I observe that 47 persons were under continual police protection in May, 1907, and in May, 1908, that number had risen to 70. If this be the state of crime, what is the state of the machinery by which crime is to be dealt with? How is the law working under the control of the right hon. Gentleman and the law officers of the Crown? At the end of 1907—at the last

1789
winter assizes—85 persons were put on their trial for agrarian offences, and not one single conviction of any sort or kind was obtained. In 1907 prosecutions before juries took place in respect of 381 persons charged with cattle-driving, and there was only one conviction. The Government, not unnaturally, finding that prosecutions for cattle-driving had utterly broken down in 380 cases out of 381, have abandoned even that ineffectual method of trying to deal with disorder or to protect property, and I understand—I hope I am not misrepresenting the right hon. Gentleman—that they have absolutely abandoned any attempt to deal with these malefactors by the ordinary course of law. What they do now is to bind them over to give sureties for good behaviour. That, as anybody could foresee, is a most futile way of dealing with the situation. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman himself will tell us it is an effective way. I am told that recognisances have been required in case after case; they have only been estreated in one case, although the person bound over has absolutely refused to carry out the undertaking. Cattle-driving, naturally and inevitably under this process of ineffectual law—threatening but never acting—is increasing steadily, with all the evils to industry, to society, and to law which are inevitable in such circumstances. If I have sketched this very dark picture as it seems to me—there may be higher lights on it somewhere; I have not come across them—if to this very dark picture we add the final touch that the right hon. Gentleman has been obliged to increase the number of police and that the cost to the counties for extra police has been growing by leaps and bounds, I think it will become apparent that the right hon. Gentleman is fully conscious of the gravity of the position with which he has got to deal, although he absolutely refuses to make use of the plainly indicated method by which that disorder may best be met. In 1907 the amount charged to local rates in respect of extra police amounted roughly to a little over £1,000. In 1908 it amounted to over £12,000. These additional charges upon the local authorities for extra police are growing before our eyes. The number of police that the right hon. Gentleman is obliged
1790
to use in order to maintain law is also growing, simply because he refuses to use the powers of the law which the Legislature of this country has put in his hand. While the cost of police and the number of police are both rising, crime is simultaneously increasing and the impunity of the offender is becoming more and more a notorious fact in every disturbed county in Ireland. May I ask what possible justification the Government can have for refusing us that additional day to discuss the Chief Secretary's Vote on which a topic so grave as this might have been dealt with, without the interruptions which cannot be avoided, of course, when the whole field of discussion is open to the House on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill? The House is thinning in numbers, losing its interest in public affairs, thinking much more of the seaside than of the state of Ireland.
MR. LUPTON: We are thinking of tariff reform.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I heartily condole with the hon. Gentleman if he is going to occupy August and September with thinking over tariff reform. Let him retire happily to the seaside, play golf, and clear his brain. I am quite certain the Chief Secretary is the last man to desire to evade debate. He is not only speaker of boundless resource, but a man of unlimited courage. I think he would have rejoiced to have an opportunity of explaining, and it may be of defending, the policy or impolicy which he is pursuing now. But he has not been given that opportunity by the Government. His colleagues have refused it to him and they have refused it, as I venture to point out to the House, for no assignable reason except the desire to have only twenty-three days in October and November devoted to the Licensing Bill, instead of the twenty-five which they would have had had we been properly treated in this matter of Supply. Everybody will feel that the House never separated with a greater feeling if general disquiet in the public mind than at the present time, considering that, so far as we know, the horizon is quite clear of clouds connected with foreign policy or international compli-

1791
cation. I share this disquietude. We were told by the Prime Minister, I think it was a year ago, that the low price of Consols was to be expected when money was very dear and when trade was very good. Money is very cheap and trade is not very good, but Consols remain low. I know how easy it is to use perversely for some immediate controversy such considerations, and I am not going to assert that all this is due to the Government. Are we sure that it is not partly due to the anxiety and disquiet about our financial position, which is the inevitable result of the policy the Government have chosen to pursue during the present session? With or without reason, they have continued to alarm vast sections of the community—they may or may not have been justified, this is not the time now to discuss that, and my opinion is well known—but the fact remains. Do not let us delude ourselves into the belief that it matters very little whether the public mind is disquieted or not—it matters a great deal, even if we cannot estimate the loss in pounds, shillings, and pence—through the difficulties the Government must have met with in their finance. So far as they are responsible they have brought upon themselves and upon us the misfortunes inevitably incident to our financial position. I do not know whether the Government are happy about the state of efficiency of our national defences, our Army, and our Fleet. I do not know whether they think with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who apparently cannot make a speech upon peace without suggesting that the best way to attain peace is by lowering the scale of our defensive armaments. I do not know whether that is likely to reassure the public mind. For my own part, seeing what the financial position is to which the Bill now to be read a second time has brought us; seeing the impression our debates on the various financial measures of the Government have made on the public mind; seeing the commitments they have made; seeing how contradictory have been statements made by members of the Government on the fundamental question of national armaments, I do not think that the public uneasiness is without justification. I earnestly hope—if not during the remainder of the session, that is too much
1792
to hope—that, at all events, next session the Government will do two things. First, that they will carry out what the right hon. Gentleman declared in a speech before he entered office to be the primary duty of a Liberal Government—to restore to the House some of its ancient privileges and traditions; and in the second place, that they will redeem, fully redeem, all the pledges they have made through the mouth of the Prime Minister in regard to the maintenance, in all circumstances, at whatever sacrifice, of the national armaments with which our security is intimately bound up.
*MR. ASQUITH: The right hon. Gentleman in the gloomy exordium and pessimistic peroration to which we have just listened has told us that never had he known the House to separate with greater feeling of disquiet.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said when there were no foreign complications.
*MR. ASQUITH: Looking round these benches, looking at the benches behind the right hon. Gentleman, my eyes fail to discern any signs of sympathy with these gloomy forebodings. If the apprehensions the right hon. Gentleman expresses, and I have no doubt sincerely entertains, were shared—I will not say by the general public—I will say by his own party, should we not have something more than this listless, apathetic audience to listen to the right hon. Gentleman's sombre vaticinations? What is it that alarms the right hon. Gentleman? He mentioned the price of Consols, but they have been higher in price this year than last. For my part, I have always declined to take the price of Consols as a measure of national credit—many factors combine to affect that result; but if the right hon. Gentleman chooses to make this suggestion, may I remind him that the German Government recently proposed to float a 4 per cent. loan at 98½ and have not got it?
SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: It was a 3½ per cent. conversion, not a 4 per cent. loan.
*MR. ASQUITH: A 4 per cent. interest, I understand, is a 4 per cent. loan. Now

1793
the question I would like to put to the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. Baronet is, would lie change places in regard to national credit with any other Government in the world; would he, after three years of Liberal administration, change with any Government you like to mention, with France, Germany, the United States, or any other country? The people of this country are not in that state of anxiety and disquietude which the imagination of the right hon. Gentleman attributes to them, for the reason that they live under a system of free trade and sound finance and the position of the country is solid and substantial.
MR. JESSE COLLINGS: With much destitution.
*MR. ASQUITH: Measure it by any test you like, my proposition will command general assent. The right hon. Gentleman said something about our national defence. There has been much criticism, and there has been ample opportunity afforded for it, upon the scheme for the reorganisation of our military forces by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War, and both inside and outside the House those criticisms have been met. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to suggest, speaking with the authority that attaches to the position of Leader of the Opposition, that our Navy is not in a position of unquestioned supremacy when compared with all the Navies in the world? Does he mean to suggest that we have allowed it to fall below that standard of efficiency which, by the consent of all parties, we ought to maintain, and the necessity for which no one has asserted on behalf of the Government more strongly than myself during the session? General vague insinuations are calculated to spread disquietude which cannot but produce evil impressions, false impressions, in foreign countries, and there is absolutely no foundation for saying that our Navy is not in a condition of first-rate efficiency, thoroughly adequate for the duties the interest of the Empire may require. Now I go back to the earlier part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He has quoted some language I used in addressing my constituents, and I do not in the
1794
least repent of what I then said—that one of the duties of the Liberal Party would be to restore the dignity and efficiency of the House of Commons. I think we have performed that duty. ["Hear, hear," and ''Oh, oh."] I do not say this in any spirit of vaingloriousness or self-complacency, and I ask any fair-minded man to look at what we have done and what we have left undone during the three sessions the Government have been in existence, and to compare these with any other three preceding years, and then judge by the comparison. The specific points raised by the right hon. Gentleman resolve themselves really into two. The first is, as he says, that we have not remedied the abuse to which I called attention in the speech from which he has quoted, the abuse of blocking motions which may prevent the discussion of matters of importance. Well, we have done much more than the right hon. Gentleman did; we appointed a Committee for the purpose of inquiring into the practice, and I had the honour to preside over it. We discussed the subject exhaustively, and dealt with it in a unanimous Report which, subsequently, I embodied in a notice of Motion which has been before the House during the whole of the session. I never had any kind of assurance from the right hon. Gentleman opposite that this Motion would meet with general acquiescence or certainly by this time it would have been a Standing Order of the House. I cannot, therefore, charge myself or the Government with any laxity in this matter; I am most anxious to see that reform speedily and with general consent introduced into our proceedings. And now I come to what, after all, is the gravamen of the charge against the Government as a whole, as distinguished from the administration of Ireland in particular—the manner in which we have dealt with Supply. I confess I listened with some astonishment to the right hon. Gentleman's figures by which he sought to draw a comparison between the amount of Supply undiscussed during his term of office and during our term. The figures do not in the least accord with those I have here recorded, I think, in authentic form from the journals of the House. I take the four years from

1795
1904. In 1904 the total amount of the Votes discussed was £68,000,000; in 1905, the last year of office of the late Government, £60,000,000; in 1906 it was £111,000,000, and in 1907 the amount was £77,000,000. That there were very considerable items of Supply undiscussed I agree, but on the comparison the record is most favourable to us in the last years as compared with the preceding years. I do not suppose anyone—I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman himself—will say that we can possibly under modern conditions have the old condition of things under which every item could be discussed without regard to relative importance. We never can return to that system, and the real test to apply to the conduct of the business of Supply by any particular Government is to ask whether they have within the number of days allotted by the rule as far as possible, submitted to the House, with the opportunity for discussion, items of the largest general interest, and subject to the most adverse criticism. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Education Vote. We should have been perfectly prepared to submit that Vote for discussion if from the Opposition, from the Irish Party, or from any considerable section of the House there had come a desire for discussion. That the desire was not expressed was the sole reason why the Vote passed undiscussed. The main charge of the right hon. Gentleman was in regard to Ireland. As I pointed out the other day, although two days were allotted, yet in one way and another Irish administration has been discussed in Committee of Supply for four and a half nights during the session. The speech of the right hon Gentleman has shown that it is competent for hon. Gentlemen to discuss it again to-day. I am not going to enter into the specific points which the right hon. Gentleman has raised, though they are serious points, and very worthy of consideration, but I cannot allow to pass the suggestion that hon. Gentlemen who sit below the gangway on the other side come to the House as subordinate members of the Liberal Party. They have a very odd way of showing their subordination, and I think that the halcyon time in which, I shall not say, co-operation, but co-ordination, in political efforts and aims,
1796
shall be established between them and us, is still rather a dream of the future than a realisation of the present. As a matter of fact, no one knows better than the Chief Secretary that every administrative act in Ireland is the subject of scrutiny from two precisely opposite points of view, and it is only when it is possible with the aid of the Treasury to provide a measure which satisfies with a pecuniary solatium some Irish need, that there are smiles of approval both below and above the gangway. I have said that I believe that we have done everything in our power to restore dignity to the House of Commons. It, is not in order to discuss legislation to-day, but it must be remembered when reviewing these matters that this House is not only the critic of administration, but also an organ of legislation. I do not think it is irrelevant even to-day when you are considering whether the time of the House has been usefully and fruitfully spent, to say that by the time the House adjourns, we shall have passed through the House in all their stages, no less than thirty-three Government Bills, as well as fifteen Bills introduced by private Members. Let me say at once that I acknowledge to the full in regard to a considerable number of those Government Bills which were of a non-contentious character, the thoroughly reasonable spirit in which we have been met, particularly at night under conditions which possibly are rather provoking, by many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. It would not have been possible to have so large a legislative harvest unless there had been loyal co-operation on both sides of the House in the attempt to carry through measures which tended to excite party passion. I acknowledge that in the fullest fashion, and I think that the House may look back on five months of as really fruitful and effective legislative work as any that has been carried in the annals of Parliament.
*MR. BRIDGEMANcalled attention to the action of the Board of Education with regard to the administration of the building grant made last year under the Appropriation Act. He did not think anyone would contend that it was competent for the Board of Education to

1797
make regulations to override the provisions of an Act of Parliament previously passed by that House. He reminded the House of Mr. Justice Channell's judgment that the Board of Education decision could only be final as to conditions not directly imposed by Act of Parliament. That showed very plainly that the Board was not empowered to make regulations which were contrary to a clause in a previous Act of Parliament. But in order to make quite sure that that was not going to be done he asked the then Minister of Education, now the First Lord of the Admiralty, a question on the subject, and on 6th February this year he replied in the following terms—
"It is proposed to make grants for building schools, but the Board will take care that the section which the hon. Member quotes (18 (1) (c) of Act, 1902) is not contravened."
Section 18 of the Act of 1902, he said, provided that a county council should charge such portion as they thought fit, not being less than half or more than three-fourths, of any expense incurred by them in respect of capital expenditure in the parish or parishes which in the opinion of the council were served by a new school. It was perfectly clear from that that there was no choice for a county council but to charge something between a half and three-quarters in the parish; but there were cases in which this had not been carried out. He could quote cases in which not only the Act, but the specific undertaking of the Minister of Education, had not been carried out. At Pontfadog in Denbighshire there was a school which had received a grant which covered the whole cost of the new building. There were other schools, too, in which the grant had been given in such a manner as to relieve the local ratepayers of any charge. In Glamorganshire the county council agreed to pay their share and that the whole of the parish share should be taken out of the grant given by the Treasury. He contended that that was absolutely illegal. The building grant was paid to the local authority and the local authority had no choice but to charge from one-half to three-fourths on the parish concerned. In this particular case it happened to be the parish in which the
1798
Welsh Secretary to the Board of Education himself resided, and, therefore, the circumstances must have come to his notice, both officially and privately. Another point of which he complained was that the inquiries made when objections had been lodged had been one-sided and perfunctory. He could quote many cases, but he would only mention that of the school at Llandaff. About two and a half years before this grant was made there had been a proposal there to build two new schools, but suddenly without giving any fresh notice, although previous notice had been given of these schools, the Board, of Education decided to build another school in a different place for a different class of people, but they gave no notice under the section of the Act of 1902, which required that they should do so in order that ratepayers opposed to the proposal should have an opportunity of objecting. Now a grant had been made of £1,000 to that school, although none of the formalities under the Act had been followed out. There were other cases in which the Board of Education had not held inquiries and heard, or attempted to hear, what was to be said on the other side. He hoped that in the distribution of the £40,000 building grant for this year the Education Acts would not be over-ridden by the Board of Education, and that both sides would be fairly heard.
Another complaint he had to make was against the composition of the Departmental Committee on half timers at school. This was a question which intimately concerned the agricultural interest—and affected that interest perhaps more than any other. But there was no adequate representation of agriculture on the Committee. He had been told in answer to a question that Lord Clifford of Chudleigh was put on to represent agriculture.
But that was not enough. He had no doubt that the noble Lord would be an admirable member of that Committee; but, however excellent he might be he was bound to say that his Lordship was a representative of the Roman Catholics rather than of agriculture. He observed that on reading is life that he was a Count of the Holy Roman Empire and, therefore, he was

1799
on the Committee as representative the Roman Catholic schools. What he wanted to impress on the right hon. Gentleman was that this was a question of the most vital importance to people interested in agriculture. An enormous number of schools were affected by this question of half-time and it was perfectly absurd to appoint a Committee on which one noble Lord could be said to be the only person to represent agriculture. He looked at the composition the Committee and found that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education was to be Chairman, but he represented London and Glasgow. Lord Stanley of Alderley represented the view of the old work done on the London School Board. Then came the hon. Member for Scarborough; Mr. Lindsell, the Secretary to the Board of Education, who was bound to be on it; Mr. Bell house, Factory Inspector; Mr. Cross, Secretary to the Weavers' Amalgamation in the Northern Counties; Mr. T. Garnett. of Manchester; Mr. Allen Gee, Huddersfield, Secretary of Union of Weavers; Mr. Oldroyd, of Dewsbury, who was, no doubt, very well known to the right hon. Gentleman, and Mr. Sykes of the Board of Education, Secretary. If this had been a Committee to inquire into the position of the children of operatives who were weavers in Lancashire and Yorkshire, or of the condition of children of people living in London it might have been a very fair Committee, but he contended that it was a most narrow, partial, and one-sided Committee to consider this great question. Three counties only were represented, and Lord Clifford of Chudleigh had to represent the rest of England. The hon. Member for West Cambridgeshire the other day also took the view that the Committee was thoroughly bad and partial; and he agreed that the reference to the Committee was most unsatisfactory. That hon. Member asked a question as to whether it was possible, owing to the terms of reference, to take evidence on the advisability of extending the exemption as well as curtailing it, but the right hon. Gentleman without much consideration said no. Now, it seemed to him that the terms of the reference were quite incompatible with the answer the right hon. Gentleman
1800
gave. Here was the second paragraph of the reference—
"To consider the practical effects of legislation providing for the abolition or restriction of half-time employment upon industries and wage-earning and upon educational organisation and expenditure."
And the third paragraph said—
"To report whether, and to what extent, in view of these considerations, it is desirable to amend the law by raising the age at which partial exemption from attendance at public elementary schools is to be permitted, or by raising the minimum age for total exemption concurrently with affording facilities for partial exemption."
The reference was purely one-sided. It allowed evidence to he taken as to the desirability of still further raising the age at which half-time or whole-time exemption was permissible, but it excluded evidence on the other side. Speaking for an agricultural constituency and resenting very much the way in which agriculture was treated in the matter of education and its special representation on the Committee, he maintained that it was most important to consider this whole question—not only from the point of view of raising the age limit, but also of lowering it. If it was desired to do something in the least satisfactory for education in the agricultural districts the proper course was to be more free with regard to exemption in day schools and put the age still lower, the continuation of study in evening schools being relied on to make good the deficiency at a later age. The boy would thus be able to keep n his head what he had learnt and would be induced to take an interest for himself in learning. He firmly believed that that was the proper way of solving the difficulty in the agricultural districts. But if this Committee was going to be guided in its decisions by hon. Gentlemen none of whom knew anything about the conditions of agriculture, he thought there was a danger of the interests of agriculture being neglected altogether. He hoped that it was not too late to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that he should alter the composition of the Committee and also the terms of reference so as to give the highest interests of agriculture a chance of being considered.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,)said he only desired to intervene for a moment

1801
between his right hon. friend the Minister for Education and the hon. Member for Oswestry in order to offer a few observations on one of the subjects referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. No one would be surprised that the right hon. Gentleman had availed himself of the opportunity which the Second Reading of this Bill gave him if he had anything to say about Ireland and the Government of Ireland. So far as he was personally concerned, he would have been very glad if a third day had been allotted to Irish Supply. The present occasion did not, he admitted, afford the opportunity of discussion which the gravity of the subject deserved. He was glad the Leader of the Opposition in his criticism that day had not referred to a matter which he or, at all events, the hon. Members behind him had referred to previously. He meant the suggestion that he regarded the present state of Ireland as other than very grave in many of its aspects. He had been accused of flippancy and levity and other qualities which, if he really showed them, he deeply regretted, for he could honestly say that the burden of his office pressed always very heavily upon him. Naturally he resented the language often employed giving the impression that the whole of Ireland was in a terrible state—language used by speakers, some of whom ought to know better, and some whose only excuse was their ignorance. It was his bounden duty to try to preserve the perspective in this case, and prevent anybody from being led to a wrong conclusion. Therefore he might have sometimes used language which, to people who had their attention concentrated on one part of the country, might have seemed a little strange. Moreover, he was not always correctly reported. He had been reported, for instance, as saying that Ireland was a cheerful land, when what he said was that Ireland was inhabited by a cheerful people. So far as he followed them the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be perfectly accurate. He did not deny that during the last twelve months there had been a lamentable increase in certain kinds of crime and of offences in certain parts of Ireland. He did not endeavour to withhold
1802
information as to the real facts of the case. No doubt there had been a very reprehensible increase in a kind of crime in Ireland, but in some respects the crime and outrage were connected with circumstances which were not entirely agrarian in the ordinary sense of the word. They arose out of lamentable disputes between the occupants of land who were dissatisfied with the allotments made to them by the Estates Commissioners. That was a very terrible thing; there were sometimes incidents of great violence, and one case, he regretted to say, resulted in actual murder. These incidents could not be altogether avoided, and he was happy to say that the ordinary law was quite sufficient to deal with them. They arose from the passion for the land. They arose from the fact that these poor people had very little to think of except the land; they exaggerated its importance enormously; and if one person obtained a rather better piece than his neighbour it often led to lamentable disputes. The Government were able to say, almost for the first time in the history of the agrarian question in Ireland, that they were able to trace to its source this recrudescence of unlawful acts. Were it not for the passion of the people in Galway and Roscommon and other counties to get possession of the grasslands, Ireland would be extraordinarily free at the present time from anything that could be called agrarian, outrage. The intimidation which took place—the firing into houses, a most detestable and cowardly form of intimidation—was almost always traceable to the question of the grasslands. It was in order to exercise intimidation upon graziers and other persons in possession of these lands, or persons who worked for the graziers, that these lamentable and cowardly acts were resorted to. It was surely a circumstance worthy of the consideration of the House at any time that they had traced to its source the origin of the increased disturbances in Ireland. It was owing to this desire to get the grasslands. For some time the policy of including grasslands within the purview of any purchase Bill was much disputed. But he could not overlook the fact that the Royal Commission presided over by Lord Dudley, and having among its

1803
members Sir Antony MacDonnell, now Lord MacDonnell, Sir Francis Mowatt, Sir John Colomb, a relative of a predecessor of his, and two others, one of whom was a Member of Parliament, and all of whom were well acquainted with the question, had held inquiries all over Ireland, particularly in the West. They had put something like 60,000 questions to witnesses from all parts of the country, and a great part of their inquiry had been directed to the very question, aye or no, in the interests of these people in the West of Ireland, was it or was it not desirable that these lands should be immediately taken up and distributed for the relief of congestion amongst the people who so anxiously needed them. That was a question on which the attention of Ireland had been fixed for the last eighteen months or two years, and all this evidence had been reported verbatim in the Irish newspapers, and read with the utmost eagerness in every market in Ireland. He had been called upon to listen over and over again to the reading of the evidence of some of the witnesses. All of it had apparently been committed to heart, and it seemed almost the dearest possession of the people. The excitement and interest occasioned by that Commission all over Ireland could not be exaggerated. What had happened? The Commission had reported in favour of this very thing, namely, the handing over of the grasslands to the people. They would say to him: "Are you, as an honest man and a lawyer, attempting for a single moment to justify lawless and improper acts simply because the Commission, after giving all its attention to the subject, has come to the conclusion that these poor people were right, not in their method but in their desires? "Of course he answered, "Nothing of the kind." One regarded with horror every act of violence; but still let them be honest in the matter, and have regard to the whole past history of Irish land legislation. They had by their Irish land legislation inevitably done a great deal to demoralise these very people. They could not deny it. It was most painful to witness going on, month after month, and year after year, this undoubted demoralisation in the minds of the people,
1804
simply and solely because they had got the idea ingrained in their minds that this House and country stood behind them with the determination to divide the land of Ireland, agricultural and pastoral, in those parts where congestion existed, amongst the people who desired it, in order that they and their families might not have to drift away to America or elsewhere, but that they might live, thrive, and work in the country to which they were so deeply attached. That demoralisation showed itself very clearly in two ways which he deeply deplored. The people of every district disregarded now the desire to relieve their poorer brethren in the congested districts, and looked upon this grazing land, when it was divided, as peculiarly their own, as something which was to be theirs, and they showed no disposition whatever to allow poor people from a distance to have economic holdings cut out of the land. He deplored that demoralisation, and, though he did not know much about; the Irish people, he knew a little about the English and Scottish people, and all he could say was that in both England and Scotland, under the same conditions, in his opinion, the demoralisation would have been much greater than, it was in Ireland at the present moment. They said, and he might assume that it was true, "This increase of crime, of acts of violence, and acts of intimidation which you so eloquently deplore, assuming that it is true that in the main they are attributable to the desire of the people to get the grass lands, does that in any way acquit you from the obligation of seeing to it that by every means in your power you suppress and punish these acts of illegality?" He quite agreed that it was the duty of the Executive Government to do the best that it could to maintain the law, but he claimed the right to consider whether or not in the long run he was not best serving the interests of law and order by the exercise of the ordinary law to put down crime, and so enlisting on his side the forces and sympathies of public opinion, rather than by resorting to methods which would undoubtedly excite pain and indignation in Ireland and might very likely lead to far worse results. The whole argument of the Opposition was that they wished to pin him down to

1805
the Crimes Act, and they said: "Unless you put that Act into force you are guilty of cowardice"; but he did not agree with that, and he was not at all dissatisfied with the results of his administration so far as that went. Cattle-driving, as an indictable offence, in association with acts of violence and unlawful assemblies, had largely ceased to exist. Cattle-drives had been very frequent; they were diminishing in number now. Last week there were only seven, the week before, and the week before that, thirteen. Of course, it might be said by hon. Gentlemen opposite that this was what might be expected in these particular months, when they might look to see cattle-driving decreasing in numbers. There might be something in that, but he knew that the fact was that it was decreasing at the present moment. He had said that for some time cattle-driving had not been associated with acts of violence or unlawful assemblies, but it had become an offence extraordinarily difficult to deal with, because it was done at night, and no trace could be discovered by the police, with all their ingenuity, of the persons who committed these offences. Though cattle-driving had ceased to be anything so large as it was, it had become exceedingly difficult to trace. He was always being asked questions about cattle-drives and what arrests had been made. He had been compelled to answer that there had been cattle raids, and that no arrests had been made, and the reason was that they did not know whom to arrest, and neither the provisions of the Crimes Act nor any other method of legislation would enable them to bring people to justice unless they could catch them. For the most part the cattle-drives which were now being made were being conducted in conditions of secrecy at right, and were not easily discovered. Therefore, it was not altogether fair to say that if he were to avail himself of the benefits of the permanent legislation of the other side, and suspended trial by jury, and placed the administration of these things in the hands of two resident magistrates he would thereby secure a larger number of convictions. A good deal of ridicule had been poured on the system of arresting those persons who had been identified, bringing them up before the
1806
magistrates, and binding them over to keep the peace. He did not agree at all with the view that that was a useless proceeding; on the contrary, he had the authority of several inspectors of police that very good results had followed from it. He did not believe there were half-a-dozen instances of persons who had entered into these recognisances and taken part in subsequent cattle-drives. It was an entire mistake to suppose that these cattle-drivers were reprobate and idle persons; for the most part, he regretted to say, they were the sons of respectable farmers, stalwart, young men, only too well able to look after themselves.
MR LONSDALE: How is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cattle-drivers are of the class he describes? A minute or two ago the right hon. Gentleman told us that they were not known.
MR. BIRRELLsaid that hundreds of them were bound over to keep the peace, and with those he was acquainted. An enormous number of cattle-drives were reported, and entered in the annals and statistics of indictable offences, and a great many persons who had taken part in them were not known. Therefore he only based his argument on those he did know, and they were a class of persons who for the most part kept their word. Therefore he would continue the use of his present weapon which, though perhaps rusty, was possibly the most effective for putting down the offence without doing that which might lead to far more serious consequences if they resorted to legislation outside of the ordinary law. Although the weapon might not be considered the most effective, it was not by any means ineffectual, and it had done a great deal of good. He was glad to notice that cattle-driving had declined in the past few weeks, although he knew that this was not the time when it occurred most frequently. Still, he was not without hope that when the winter time came the method they had adopted—though he admitted it had tried their patience to the utmost—might prove to have more permanent results in securing the peace of the neighbourhood than if they had suspended the ordinary

1807
law and handed over the liberty of hundreds of people to two resident magistrates. At all events that was the view that he took of the case. He could not admit, even on the figures, that the increase of offences was of an alarming character, though he quite agreed that it was profoundly to be deplored. The figures were not of a kind to lead anyone to abandon hope as to the course they were endeavouring to pursue. Complaint was made of the increase of the police. That was, he confessed, the most melancholy feature of the case. He had been obliged to increase enormously the number of the police in consequence of the necessity of watching great areas of sparsely populated country. Half the loss fell on the Treasury, and the other half on the county, and certainly nothing had pained him more than the fact that, while he was struggling to get money for the higher education of Ireland, struggling for a few thousands of pounds for the annual endowment of a college, he should have been obliged, simply in consequence of this stupid, as well as wrong, policy, to cast on the taxpayers of this country, as well as of Irish counties, themselves already heavily overburdened, a further burden amounting to many thousands a year. It was a lamentable feature of the situation that he should have been compelled to impose this heavy burden on the English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish taxpayers. He lamented it from the bottom of his heart, but he still said, in spite of the shortcomings of his policy, in spite of the figures which the right hon. Gentleman had quoted, he believed that at the present moment he stood in a better position for the future maintenance of law and order in Ireland than if, adopting the policy of the Party opposite, he had made war on the people of Ireland, in spite of the protestations of the Liberal Party that they would do all that they could for as long as they could to govern them according to the ordinary law. He believed that he had been right in the policy he had adopted. If he had followed any other policy he was convinced that instead of being better, the situation would have become worse. The temper and the disposition of the Irish people, even in those disturbed portions of the country, would have
1808
been worse to-day than he had reason to believe they now were. He was, at any rate, not going to abandon hope, and he certainly thought that he was entitled to make an appeal to the Irish people and to the Irish leaders to exercise such influence as they could on the population, for whom everyone must have profound sympathy, properly to guide and control their action. He hoped each would exercise such influence as he had, to whatever party in the State he might belong, to see to it that these people were told what their duties were both to God and to their neighbours, that they should not have to lament the excellent land legislation which he hoped to see carried through by others, if not by himself, and that there should be no cause to regret that they had introduced that policy because of the demoralisation in some few parts of the country.
MR. WALTER LONGNo one will accuse the right hon. Gentleman of trifling with the position of affairs in Ireland, but when he asks us to realise that he treats it gravely and seriously, and tells us that suggestions to the contrary vex him, he must, I think, remember that there has been no small provocation for the adoption of a view like that. He cannot forget that more than once he himself has poured ridicule and contempt upon Members on this side of the House for doing that which he had been obliged to refer to to-day, viz., bringing before Parliament facts and figures the accuracy of which he has never been able to dispute. I do not wonder that the right hon. Gentleman claims in the first place his right as Chief Secretary to decide for himself what is the Government policy. Nobody disputes his right, but he cannot dispute our right to judge of his policy, not by his own statements, not by his own expressions of hope, not by his own opinions, but by the actual results which have followed from that policy. The Chief Secretary told us in his closing and most eloquent sentences that he believed the condition of Ireland would be worse today than it is in these parts of Ireland to which I have referred, if he had adopted a different policy; but what justification has the Chief Secretary for that view? He will find no justification in the previous history of the country or

1809
in the previous administration of his predecessors He himself, and his immediate predecessor, when they came to Dublin Castle, said they found Ireland in a condition of peace which had not been equalled for many years. That state of affairs had been brought about by an administration of the law which was absolutely equal as between man and man. The Chief Secretary says he is not altogether dissatisfied with the results of his policy, but, if that be so, he must be satisfied with very small results indeed. My right hon. friend called attention to the increase in the number of offences, especially the use of firearms, the gravest and surest indication of serious unrest in those parts of the country where the particular crime is committed. My right hon. friend also called attention to the increase of police, and although the Chief Secretary started with a condition of things so satisfactory that he and his predecessor constantly alluded to it in their speeches, he is bound to admit here to-day that he has had to increase the number of police in the counties because of the condition of unrest in which he finds them. Can it be urged that it is unjust or unfair of us to arraign him and his administration when facts of that kind are put before Parliament and the country? The Chief Secretary went on to trace this condition of things to the passion for land in Ireland. But that has been the fact in Ireland ever since the country existed. The passion for the land is the oldest, and in some respects perhaps the saddest, story in Ireland, and does the Chief Secretary or anybody believe that, if the people in Ireland believe, as they will believe, if his policy continues, that all they have got to do is to support their desire for land by crime and misconduct and that their desires will be met by Parliament—does he believe that the consequences to Ireland will not be of the gravest possible description? Is anybody so foolish as to I believe that they can curb the desires of the various classes in Ireland? Hon. Gentlemen opposite surely know that even now there are signs in Ireland of a desire to share in the benefits hitherto conferred solely upon the farmers. Are you going to teach them, because they have a hunger for something, that if they want to get it they are to follow the example of those who are breaking the
1810
law now because, as the Chief Secretary says, they not altogether unnaturally desire to get the land for themselves? The Chief Secretary told us that he was urged by hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House and by the Unionist Party in Ireland to suspend the ordinary law and to put the extraordinary law into force. The remarkable part of that extraordinary law is that when it was passed by my right hon friend, some parts of it were made to depend upon proclamations by the Government, but some parts were made a part of the ordinary statute law requiring no proclamation of any kind whatever; and what we have urged on the Chief Secretary is not that he should proclaim districts, or use those parts of the Act which must be preceded by proclamation, but that he should make full use of the general law; until he has done that, he cannot claim that he has done everything in his power to put down lawlessness and disorder. He told us that cattle-driving was not so very grave an offence as some people believed it to be. He said it was abominable and objectionable, but he pointed out that cattle-driving is indulged in by men among whom were small farmers and people of some substance, that in many cases it was not accompanied by brutal treatment either of human beings or of the animals themselves, and that therefore in many cases it was not so brutal as it was represented to be on this side of the House. The question of the degree of brutality has nothing to do with the commission of this particular offence. At first we were told that this cattle-driving was directed against tenants who occupied grazing land only, and that, at the beginning of the outbreak of cattle-driving, it was only the graziers that were attacked; but it did not take long before the lesson taught in the beginning was learnt and applied in other cases, and it has long ceased to be the case that cattle-driving is applied only to graziers. Many "drives" now take place on the farms of tenant farmers, not men of wealth, and it is inevitable, if it is allowed in the one case, that it will follow in the other, and as it goes on, it will become more and more difficult to put down. The Chief Secretary told us it is dying down already, but it was only in the debates raised at the beginning of this session in February that we were told exactly the same story. Many of

1811
us who know something of the cattle trade in Ireland, believe that the reasons which led to the reduction in the number of cases then had nothing on earth to do with the application of the law, but had solely to do with the conditions of the trade itself. I believe that is the reason now, but at all events, we know that the same hopes were indulged in in February, and dashed to the ground in April and May, and the same hopes being indulged in in July will, unless the law be enforced, be dashed to the ground in November and December. We must, said the Chief Secretary, legislate in order to remove this congestion. By all means. I have never concealed my view that if there be a grievance which legislation will remove, by all means take every chance to pass your legislation, and do justice to the country; but at the same time that you are carrying remedial legislation, you; must first of all enforce the law without any fear or favour as between man and man. The Chief Secretary told us pathetically that he knew too little of the land question in Ireland, and that during his tenure of office he had been unable to do more than study it in parts. I am sure he will find that any Act of Parliament, based even upon the remarkable recommendations of the Congestion Commission—and when he quoted Lord Dudley and Lord Mac-Donnell, the late Under-Secretary for Ireland, surely he forgets that those gentlemen have all got recommendations of their own, and that the Report of that Commission is not one united Report.
MR. BIRRELL. It is united as to the grass lands.
MR. WALTER LONG: Only on one point. But the Chief Secretary forgets that he is dealing with congestion where it creates a desire for land. He must know that in proportion to the people whom you have demanding grass land, and who are now dissatisfied, the amount of grass land available, even if you took the whole of it, would not serve to go round more than one-tenth of them. Legislation dealing with congestion does not meet the case, because you cannot by legislation make land. You can take it away from those who have it and give it to others, but you cannot make fresh land. That is beyond even the power of a Radical Government, and
1812
if you let it be thought for a moment that the desire for land and the miseries which arise from congestion justify in any degree the commission of these offences, and that you will proceed to treat them rather by reforms than by punishment, you will go on getting this kind of thing steadily increasing as it has done during the last three years. Do the Chief Secretary and the Irish Government believe that under the Evicted Tenants Act they are going to remove all the difficulties which have arisen in connection with the evicted tenants question? Whereas it is only possible to find accommodation for a few hundreds, applications have been made on the part of thousands. While you can only hope to deal with a limited number as the Chief Secretary has tried to do, you have an enormous number of those people still clamouring to be treated in this way, still demanding land and demanding to be put back on their farms, and none of these demands can be met. It is impossible by legislation ever to deal with unrest in Ireland. Unless you make it clearly understood that you are whole-hearted and determined in your enforcement of the law, agitation will go on and increase as it has been doing during recent months. The Chief Secretary told us that he was entitled not only to decide as between the two courses open to him, but that he was entitled to be judged fairly by his critics. Of course he is. But, on the other hand, we are entitled to ask whether the law has been enforced in such a way as is likely to make the people believe you are in earnest. But you have prosecuted the followers and left out the leader. What would be the effect produced here in England if, in the case of riots led by people who were well known, and by their position were entitled to lead their fellows, the prosecution was directed against those who followed and those who led were left out altogether? The same effect would be produced as is produced in Ireland, and until you make up your mind without fear or favour to prosecute and punish, so far as you can, those who are responsible, not only as followers, but as leaders, in the commission of these offences, you will have, whatever may be your intentions—and nobody denies that they are good—the same sorry tale to tell that you have had to tell to-day, viz., to admit that every

1813
one of these statements is correct, that the increase in crime is as stated, that you have had to add to your proclamations more counties, and that you are obliged to appeal to friends and opponents to help you in a task which you have found greater than you are able to accomplish. The Chief Secretary went on to make an appeal to all parties in Ireland. I venture to say, and I am speaking with some knowledge of what I am talking about, that in that portion of Ulster from which the majority of the Unionist representatives come, and who generally side with us on this side of the House, there has been, especially during the last year or two, a steadfast and an honest attempt to do that which would tend to the general peace and quiet of the country, to support the Government in their efforts to maintain peace on those difficult occasions when there is risk of collision between Orangemen and Nationalists, an honest attempt to prevent disorder and bloodshed. I can promise the Chief Secretary that so far as those for whom I am entitled to speak are concerned, there will be every assistance given to him and his Government in any effort they make to maintain the law. The Chief Secretary urged just now that he ought not to be charged with treating with levity the great question of the government of Ireland. There are many men in Ireland, not politicians, but honest citizens, farmers, landowners, and tradesmen, who believe that by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, whatever may be the position of the Chief Secretary, the claims we make on behalf of Ireland are treated, if not with levity, at all events with contempt. We contend that every statement we have made has been admitted to be correct by the Chief Secretary. He admits that his record is unsatisfactory, but he says it will be worse if he does other things. We say that that is not the opinion of Ireland. We say that when you have fairly administered the law between all classes of the people without fear or favour the result has always been a diminution in crime and an increase in the prosperity of the people and those very results, peace and happiness, which the Chief Secretary and his predecessors found in Ireland when they succeeded a Unionist Chief Secretary and a Unionist Administration. It is impossible to carry on a debate of
1814
this kind on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill. It is quite obvious that there are many Members of the House who want to talk about other questions and the time at our disposal is very limited. I accept the statement of the Chief Secretary that he would have been glad to be allowed to have his Vote discussed, but I think it is little short of a public scandal that questions of this magnitude, affecting the happiness of a considerable section of His Majesty's subjects, should be so inadequately and so insufficiently discussed. We have raised the discussion not because we want to delay the business of the House, but because this is the only occasion on which we can put before the House what we believe to be the true situation in Ireland, and upon which we can voice our conviction that those who are responsible for Irish Government have lamentably failed in the discharge of their primary duty.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that obviously he could not let the speech to which they had just listened pass without a word of reply from the point of view represented by his hon. friends and himself. He would have been glad if there had been more time to take some notice of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. With great fairness the right hon. Gentleman, before he came to describe the atrocities of his successors in the employment of the guillotine, made a confession of the atrocities of himself and his own Government. He said that in the session of 1904 there were £31,000,000 of money voted without discussion, and in 1905 £50,000,000. He could have shown to his heart's content that his successors had voted even much larger sums under the guillotine without advancing his cause. The right hon. Gentleman was distinguished from those who had succeeded him by the fact that he had no remedy for the present state of things, and that the present Government had a remedy. Was there a man in the House who did not know that the process of closure, reaching its ultimate form of violence in the guillotine, was going to go on from year to year, augmented by every successive Government, until in the end they might come to the time when practically free discussion, in the

1815
old sense of the word, would have entirely disappeared? What was the real root of all this? Was it the wickedness of one Government or of another? Was it because the Tories were wicked and the Liberals more wicked still? When either a Liberal or a Conservative used that language in Opposition he had his tongue in his cheek. When the Opposition became the Government they would employ the guillotine, and when the Government became the Opposition they would denounce it. The real root of the whole thing was that the Imperial Parliament was trying to do not merely the great work of the nation and the Empire at large, but work which ought to be left to local bodies in England, Wales, and Scotland, as well as Ireland. It was something like irony that the Leader of the Opposition, himself a Scotsman, should use the same figures as to Supply voted under the guillotine as; an argument in favour of the status quo that he (Mr. O'Connor) used to prove that Parliament had broken down in its work of Imperial control of its finances and as an argument for transferring to a Scottish Assembly the adequate, wise discussions of purely Scottish affairs. He had heard with alarm the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that in his opinion this Parliament had lost real control over the expenditure of the country. According to his theory the only reason the House now discussed the Estimates was that the discussion of Estimates gave them an opportunity for the discussion of policy. Of course, that was one of the great purposes and functions of discussions in Supply. But he was sure the people of this country would be alarmed and astounded if they could realise the meaning of the words of the man who for fifteen years was the leader, almost the dictator, of their great representative assembly, when he said that under the present system the House of Commons had practically lost all control over the expenditure of the country. Those were general questions, and he had no right to stand between the House and other hon. Members who wished to address it. With regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, he stated that he was in favour of legislation for the purpose of dealing with the problem of congestion in Ireland and he was glad to hear that pledge.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he did not pledge himself to anything. What he said was that he was in favour and always had been of removing any grievance in Ireland.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that congestion happened to be the serious question at the present moment, and he inferred that the right hon. Gentleman had that in mind. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would not take anything like a factious opinion in dealing with grievances which were admitted by all parties in this House. The theory of the right hon. Gentleman was that if there was disorder and crime in Ireland there was only one way of dealing with it, and that was by putting into operation certain portions of what the right hon. Gentleman would call the Crimes Act, but what he preferred to call the Coercion Act. He objected to the employment of the word "crime "in this connection. The right hon. Gentleman had committed himself to the statement that there was not a single statement of fact with regard to Ireland brought forward by himself and his friends which had not been fully confirmed. That was an astonishing phrase. He had claimed that a general case had been made out, but what was that general case? He did not mean during the session of Parliament, but during the recess which preceded that session. Was there a single hon. Member who did not read in scores of speeches and leading articles that the only analogy to the condition of Ireland was in Macedonia or Armenia. That appeared almost in every speech of the members of the Tory party and in articles in the Tory Press. There were 10,000 murders in four years in Macedonia, whereas in twelve months of Irish history with which the comparison was made there was not a single agrarian murder. Therefore Irishmen had a right to complain when their national character was villified with such gross and wicked exaggeration by gentlemen who would resent being told that their object was to sow dissension between the people of England and Ireland. What were the facts with regard to crime in Ireland? Would any man say that it was fair to speak of cattle-driving in the same terms as one would apply to the scores of murders which had defaced the annals of history. What was the case? Was

1817
there a single Assize Court in this country where a Judge in the last twelve months had been presented with white gloves? There was not one that he knew of. As a matter of fact there had been more trials and offences tried at one country Assize Court in England than in the whole of Ireland in the period named. In Limerick and in two or three other cities of Ireland the County Court Judge had been presented with white gloves because there were no offences to try, and all over the country Judges had been congratulating the population. In the face of this universal testimony to the crimelessness of Ireland, it was a little too bad that not only hon. Members above the gangway but responsible men like the Leader of the Opposition should endeavour to picture Ireland as one mass of bloodshed and violence like Macedonia. As to disorder, how was that to be removed? The policy of the Leader of the Opposition was to revive the Coercion Act. In debating Coercion Acts for the last thirty years he never knew one which did not aggravate the evils which it sought to remedy, and he believed that if to-day Ireland was free from crime, although not free from disquiet and disorder, it was because the Chief Secretary had had the courage to resist the enormous and gigantic pressure of true and false statements which had been used to induce him to apply coercion. The administration of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin was dead and gone, and he could therefore speak of it without acrimony. He would venture to tell the right hon. Gentleman that it was the opinion of every sane man in Ireland who took a wholly impartial view of politics and administration as he was giving to Ireland would have led to an outburst of crime which would have made his task impossible and would have defaced the annals of Ireland, creating bitterness and bad feeling more than ever existed before. If the present Chief Secretary had followed the policy of his predecessor and applied coercion, what would have been the effect? The whole of the Liberal Party were pledged to the hilt against coercion and had voted session after session for the repeal of the Coercion Act. If the Liberal Party had applied coercion, what would have been the
1818
position? If a policy was right in his opinion it should be applied whether it led to the success or failure of any political party here or there. What he was concerned with was that the application of coercion to Ireland by a Liberal Government would have meant the swallowing of all the pledges which the Liberal Party had made, and it would have destroyed the moral character and repute of that party, besides digging another deep gulf of mistrust between the people of England and Ireland. To the Government it would also have meant the bankruptcy of democracy in this country. What was the real cure for the present state of Ireland? What was the cause of disturbance? The Chief Secretary had stated that it was not merely that there was a grievance in Ireland, but that there was a grievance which was admitted by all parties in this country and in Ireland, viz., that side by side with the congested districts in which the people had herded together so long, were vast tracts of splendid and fertile land, miles of which were not broken by a single human being. An influential Royal Commission had reported in favour of the solution of that problem by increasing the size of small holdings, and adding to them portions of this untenanted land. Would the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin deny that this was a wise way of meeting the question? It was something that would make one almost weep for the tragedy and irony of Irish life, that this solution of the question had been waiting now for generations, and had not yet come. Why was there disorder in Ireland? Because they had been waiting for this remedy, not for decades, but for generations, and even for centuries. Had they not suffered enough and lost enough? At the present moment in England they were discussing the problem of how to get the people back to the land. In this country they were all alarmed and moved by the tragedy of village life, because the villages were becoming empty, and their best sons and daughters were crowding into the congested streets of the great cities. In Ireland the problem was exactly the opposite. They did not want the people to come back to the land, they wanted them to remain on it, and that was a policy which every hon. Member ought to support. They ought not

1819
to be asked to wait any longer. During his own time Ireland had lost a third of the population it had at the time when he was born there sixty years ago. Every year there was still this tremendous hemorrhage going on. To the extent of 20,000, 30,000 and 40,000 a year Ireland's sons and daughters were leaving her shores. No more touching sight than the partings amid tears and prayers of the Irish emigrants from their native soil could be witnessed. He asked that they should be allowed to remain within the shores of their own land. Let the right hon. Gentleman restrain his own followers from such violent, exaggerated, and malicious language as to the real condition of Ireland. Let him help to give to the right hon. Gentleman promptly such legislation as would satisfy the proper demands and the patriotic aspirations of the masses of the people.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,)said he would endeavour as shortly as possible to deal with the speech of the right hon. Member for South Dublin. He had no complaint to make of the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's speech; he thought indeed that the Chief Secretary and he had cause to be well satisfied with the way in which the right hon. Gentleman had referred to them personally. He had made no attempt, like some of his followers and many newspaper writers, to insinuate and suggest that the Chief Secretary had not been actuated with the desire to suppress crime and, disorder as much as he possibly could. The right hon. Gentleman he thought would admit that, whether right or wrong in its methods, the Irish Administration desired quiet and order in Ireland.
MR. WALTER LONG: Certainly.
MR. CHERRYsaid that being so, it was only a question of methods. The right hon. Gentleman had severely criticised them, first, because they had not put the Crimes Act in force, and secondly, because they had not prosecuted the leaders, but had attempted to prosecute the followers. He thought he would be able to convince the right hon. Gentleman that the two charges resolved themselves into one. As regards the Crimes Act, he did not
1820
know if the right hon. Gentleman was in agreement with the nobleman who was Lord-Lieutenant when he was in office, but they remembered the eloquent speech made by Lord Dudley early in the session, in another place, when he expressed himself as opposed to the use of any portion of the Crimes Act. In the House of Commons the senior Member for Dublin University, when asked if he was of opinion that the Crimes Act should be put in force, declined to answer the question. He cited these two leading statesmen for the purpose of showing the House that those who had been connected with the administration of Ireland, on either side of politics, recognised how serious a step it was to put the Crimes Act in force, and how desirous everyone was to avoid making use of it. It appeared to him that the objections to making use of the part of the Act which did not require the proclamation by the Lord-Lieutenant were as great as to the rest of the Act. Section 2 enabled a person charged with unlawful assembly to be tried before a special Court composed of two resident magistrates. That special Court was composed by the Lord-Lieutenant, acting on the advice of the Attorney-General, who selected two resident magistrates, not judicial persons, it must be remembered, but ordinary Civil servants liable to dismissal. Then the Attorney General sent some representative to appear before these gentlemen. He made no charge against the resident magistrates, and he assumed that the Attorney-General would not prosecute unless he was satisfied there was a strong case for conviction, but let the House look at the effect on the public. The public saw a tribunal appointed by what was called the Castle, and a prosecutor coming down from the Castle, and they said the accused had no chance. He was of opinion that if they put this clause in the Crimes Act into force in Ireland, farewell to the idea of persuading people that the administration of the law was fair and just. They could not do it, and it was for this reason that they had sought to avoid, and would still seek to avoid, putting this particular law into force. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the fact that the followers were prosecuted and that the leaders were allowed to go scot free. In saying that he had repeated a charge which had

1821
been made again and again during the past year. That charge was made against them because one particular individual was not prosecuted, namely, the Member for North West Meath. They all knew that during last autumn and winter the hon. Member carried on a campaign in favour of cattle-driving. There were clamorous cries in the Press and from hon. Gentlemen opposite to prosecute him, and the Government were charged with cowardice for not doing so, and were accused of sympathising with his words and acts. What was the reason for the course they took? They believed, and still believed, that by prosecuting that gentleman they would have increased his influence instead of diminishing it. He did not think that at the present day he was capable of carrying out a cattle-drive of the smallest possible dimensions. [An HON. MEMBER: Thanks to Judge Ross.] He said it was thanks to the action of the Government, which persisted in ignoring him instead of making a martyr of him. If they had prosecuted him they would have done so according to the ordinary law, and what possible chance would there have been in the temper Ireland was in last autumn and winter of securing a conviction under the ordinary law. They must clear their minds of cant. He did not want to deny obvious facts, and everyone knew that a prosecution before a jury at that time would have been absolutely futile. Did the right hon. Gentleman suggest that they ought to have brought such a prosecution? It was for that reason that he said that the two points came into one. If they had wanted to prosecute the hon. Member in any other way for trying to encourage a campaign of cattle-driving they would have been compelled to put the Crimes Act in force. Did the right hon. Gentleman think the occasion required an interference with the ordinary law which would destroy any possible chance of getting the mass of the people or the country to believe that the law was fairly administered? They had heard a great deal about the amount of intimidation in Ireland. There was a great deal of intimidation in certain counties, but there was this feature which they must recognise as certainly a very favourable one, namely, that this intimidation was not accompanied or followed by serious crime. There were many cases of shooting in
1822
the air, or booing on the road opposite a man's house, and a great deal of unpopularity was occasioned to people who took grazing land, but they had had no case of agrarian murder, and they had had practically no serious crime. There was only one serious case in Galway. There had been no period in the last forty years when there had been less serious crime. Intimidation was a serious thing, and the Government would take every possible means of putting an end to it. They viewed it with horror. They wanted the House to distinguish between disorder and crime. There had been a great deal of disorder, but very little crime. Disorder was steadily decreasing. Reports from Galway and Roscommon were most favourable, and the police in both these counties believed that the worst was past. They had every hope that before another year was out disorder would have disappeared.
*MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid that his hon. friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool had drawn a comparison between the relative proportion of crime in Ireland and in this country. He was not inclined to sit silent when anyone contended that the Irish population was less disposed to crime than the English population. When such an imputation was made it became necessary to place on record the fact that twenty years ago the Report of the Prisons Commissioners for England and Wales showed that in the prisons of England and Wales the prisoners of Irish birth were 10 per cent. of the prison population, while persons of Irish birth in the ordinary population of England and Wales were only 2 per cent. He would be the very last person to make use of that significant fact as a basis for wounding criticism of the Irish race; for it must be patent to everyone that that test had to be considered along with the not less important tact that the Irish population which contributed to the crime of England and Wales lived under squalid circumstances in industrial centres through no fault of their own. Not only were the scenes under which they lived not those of their own beloved country, but the conditions under which they lived were more squalid and remote than those in which they

1823
would be living in their own land. He hoped that if comparisons were to be made again the very significant figures to which he had drawn attention would be borne in mind in order that these comparisons might not be made use of for the purpose of hurling recriminations backwards and forwards across the Irish Channel.
SIR HERBERT ROBERTSsaid he wished to draw attention to a question of importance to all interested in Welsh education. Certain points of difficulty had recently arisen connected with the relations of the Central Welsh Board to the Welsh Department of the Board of Education. On Tuesday last, a deputation representing the Central Welsh Board waited upon the President of the Board of Education for the purpose of enabling representations to be made with regard to the points at issue. His right hon. friend in the course of his reply indicated his desire to meet, as far as possible, the views submitted to him. It appeared, however, that there was a certain amount of misunderstanding and misapprehension as to the purport of the reply of his right hon. friend, and in view of the importance of the question and the desirability of removing those misconceptions, he thought he was justified in taking this opportunity of calling attention to the facts, in order that his right hon. friend might be able to dissipate, as he would be able to do, the doubts and fears that had arisen. The conditions under which the Central Welsh Board worked, and its relations to the Board of Education, were questions which in the sphere of Welsh education went beyond mere departmental routine. The Central Board was regarded in Wales as the foundation of a large measure of educational autonomy. For many years it had been devotedly served by men who had unstintedly given their time, energy, and thought to the cause of education. Everybody in the House would agree that it was most important that nothing should be done to damp the ardour of those men who had played their part in a notable experiment with reference to education in Wales. Whilst admitting, therefore, to the full the necessity for the exercise of such supervision by the Board of Education as
1824
was rendered imperative by the payment of Parliamentary grants, all would recognise the importance of doing everything possible to secure cordial co-operation between the Central Welsh Board and the Board of Education. There was but one opinion as to the value of the work accomplished by the Central Board, and the President of the Board of Education in his reply to the deputation had, in the most generous terms, paid his tribute to the character of that work and its value to the cause of education, and the place of that body in Welsh life. There was only one opinion on that point, and he wished to express his appreciation of the admirable way in which the officials in London—the Secretary of the Welsh Education Department of the Board of Education and the Chief Inspector—had endeavoured to serve the educational interests and to promote the educational ideals of Wales. He would like to refer to one or two main points on which representations were made to the President of the Board of Education in connection with the difficulties which had arisen with regard to the exercise of their functions in relation to educational progress in Wales. The first point, he might mention, was the statutory powers of the Central Board. There had been, he believed, some idea in certain quarters that the Government were in some way desirous of interfering with the Central Board's statutory powers, but his right hon. friend had made it absolutely clear that so far from interfering with these statutory powers, he was personally anxious for a further extension of autonomous powers with regard to education in Wales. He might remind the House with reference to the attitude of the Government to this question, that it was this Government which proposed in the Bill of 1906 a scheme of complete educational autonomy for Wales, and to give it a national council of education, which provision was afterwards thrown out in another place. That ought to be sufficient to dissipate any doubt as to the real determination and desire of the Government. That was his first point; and he hoped there would be no further contention upon it after this debate. His second point related

1825
to the system of dual inspection owing to the existing conditions with regard to the administration of the Parliamentary grant. No one denied the inevitable inconveniences of such a system. The late President of the Board of Education made it perfectly clear a year ago that he fully recognised the inconveniences of the dual system, and the same view was held and had been expressed by the present President. However, they were face to face with the fact that while the conditions regulating the payment of the grants continued, the President of the Board of Education must exercise such supervision in inspection as would enable him to fulfil his obligations to Parliament. There had been a growing fear that the inspection of the Board of Education would, as time went on, become more exacting, and that the evils of the dual system would be accentuated. That point was pressed by the deputation, and the President of the Board of Education made a statement, the meaning and value of which he did not think was fully understood. The right hon. Gentleman expressed his desire to reduce to a minimum the inconveniences of the dual system, subject to the fulfilment of Parliamentary conditions. He firmly believed that there was much in that statement, and he hoped that in his reply the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give a somewhat fuller expression of his meaning and of the views he had put before the deputation, in order that all doubts on the point might disappear. Another point which the deputation emphasised was the desire of the Central Board to have, if possible, some recognition in the Welsh Code for secondary schools in Wales and Monmouthshire of the position of the Central Board in regard to intermediate education. Great weight was attached to this point, and he hoped that the President of the Board of Education would give just consideration to it, and see if something could not be done in the matter. Another point had arisen in connection with the new arrangements with reference to the methods of correspondence. According to the present requirements of the Board of Education, all correspondence had to be conducted directly between the Welsh Education Department and the schools concerned. A
1826
great deal of feeling had been aroused with reference to the difficulties which had arisen from this procedure. He ought to make it clear that he did not think any Welsh Member desired for a moment to press for the retention of any system which was educationally unsound, but they held the view very strongly that all matters connected with curriculum, forms, time-tables, etc., should be handled by the Central Welsh Board; and that all communications on such matters should be made, as heretofore, through that Board. The right hon. Gentleman had undertaken to give this matter his consideration. In conclusion, he had only to add that from the outset of those proceedings he had never had the slightest doubt as to the attitude of his right hon. friend towards the Central Welsh Board, and he felt assured that his right hon. friend was determined to do nothing which would in any way weaken its influence or authority. But, in view of the misconceptions which had arisen, and having regard to the importance of the question, and of every question relating to education in the minds of the people of Wales, he would press his right hon. friend to make a statement which would give to Wales and to those interested in Welsh educational autonomy, an added assurance as to the mind and intention of the Government on this admittedly important subject.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. RUNCIMAN,)said the assurances which he had given to hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies were real assurances. No one in the United Kingdom who had been interested in secondary education for the last fifteen or twenty years could overlook the fact that the Central Welsh Board gave an impetus to secondary education in Wales long before the movement spread as it had done. He was not sure that the secondary school system of Wales had not been supported with even more enthusiasm in Wales than in Scotland, and no one who knew anything of intermediate education in Wales was likely to do anything to hamper the machinery that had done so much good. The history of secondary education in Wales was bound up not only with

1827
the Central Welsh Board, but with other institutions. The only funds in the old days at the disposal of those who conducted secondary education in Wales were the funds provided by way of a Treasury grant. Since those days Parliament had become more generous, and already the Parliamentary grant had become nearly three times that of the old Treasury grant. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had control of the national finance, and he hoped his right hon. friend would take note of the ominous fact, that whereas the Treasury grant had remained stationary all these years, the Parliamentary grant had gone up, and only this year they had increased the grant to Wales, so that all the Welsh schools were dealt with on identically the same basis as the English schools. Discrepancies had arisen last year which led to the unfortunate distribution of less among the Welsh schools than among the English schools. The whole of the grants, however, were now paid on the higher basis of £5 per child. The difficulty about the Parliamentary grant lay in the fact that the Minister who distributed it must be prepared to give an account to the House of Commons of the way in which it was spent, the standard at which the schools had been maintained, and how far the secondary school system had not been confused with the lower system. He had no tendency towards extravagance, and there would be no such tendency while he was at the Board of Education. He had no intention of sanctioning any method which would in any way restrict the funds available in Wales or in England. A Minister could only be answerable for what took place in the distribution of money under his control provided that those who represented him in the provinces and elsewhere were his immediate servants. He admitted that the whole system of dual inspection was to be deprecated, and that in so far as the Department could get rid of it, every effort would be made in that direction. He reminded the House that one effect of the change initiated by his predecessor and carried out by Mr. Owen Edwards resulted in diminishing dual inspection to an enormous extent in Wales. In Glamorgan, Cardigan, Carnarvon, and in the town of
1828
Cardiff, which represented about half the total population of Wales, there was under this arrangement no dual inspection whatever. That was the first step in the right direction, and he hoped it would be recognised that under their administration efforts had been made to get rid of this troublesome duplication. Next year there would be a further diminution of the inspections, and those inspections would be restricted to the bursars who were being taught in the secondary schools. He thought it quite conceivable that they might be able to extend elimination as the years went on, but he could not promise that they would be able to wipe out all the Board's inspectors in Wales. They intended, however, to make as much use as possible of the Central Welsh Board, rather than cover the ground twice over, although that might be necessary in some cases, and that nobody could object to. Mr. Owen Edwards not only understood what high educational ideals were, but he was a typical Welshman. His one desire was to raise the standard of the schools. The other points raised were not of such great importance. The question of the correspondence was a very trite matter, so far as the Central Welsh Board was concerned, and the only letters that could be cut out of the ordinary routine of headmasters were such letters as related to open-air work, epidemics, etc. Those letters could be better dealt with if they passed direct to the Board of Education rather than through the Welsh Central Board, and then on to the Department to be answered. The next point raised had reference to curriculum and time analysis forms, etc. The Government were of opinion at the time that these forms could pass to and from the Board and the schools. It did not really much matter one way or the other. If they passed through the Welsh Central Board it only meant that they would be reprinted and that would cause delay. He saw no reason in the world why the system which worked fairly well last year should not be continued. To that end he had given instructions that the next forms which were moved should be on the old basis, and not on the system adopted during the current session. The last

1829
point which had been raised was the insertion in the code of direct recognition of the Central Welsh Board. This was a matter which he could not go into until after consultation with those who were responsible for the financial relations of the House. He could not accept right off the suggestion which had been made because he had not had an opportunity of discussing it with his colleagues, and he hoped, therefore, lie would be excused from giving an answer on that point at the moment. He hoped that the Welsh Department of the Board of Education and the Central Welsh Board would do everything in their power to diminish the amount of friction which must necessarily be associated with the educational system. His sole desire was to see that the scholars should have the benefit of the best system of education that they could organise and that local interest should be encouraged, because on the enthusiasm which was created depended the prosperity of the Welsh schools. Reference had been made to the Half-timers' Committee which was set up last week, complaint being made that there was upon it nobody strictly representing the agricultural interest. He did not shut his eyes to the fact that the half-timers' question did, of course, touch the agricultural districts as well us the manufacturing districts, and in so far as the reference to the Committee was concerned, if it did not touch agriculture, he would like to know what it did touch. He presumed that everything which could be discussed with regard to half-timers both in the agricultural and manufacturing districts would come within the purview of the Committee. That, was his view, and he was sure that it would be carried out by his hon. friend.
*MR. BRIDGEMANsaid that what he had stated was that the reference to the Committee prevented evidence being taken except in one direction.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid he did not agree that it would prevent evidence being taken except in one direction. The whole question could be and would be thoroughly inquired into by his hon. friend and those associated with him. He did not believe in packing a Committee with partisans all on one side or the other.
1830
He believed in getting a good and impartial judgment, and that was what he had aimed at. In regard to any difference of view on the part of the hon. Member it was a difference not as to method, but as to the policy which lay behind—a policy to which the Government strongly adhered, namely, that they would not allow any district to be monopolised by denominational schools. That had been their object, and they intended as far as they could, if they could not do it by legislation to do it by grants of money both to England and Wales. The hon. Gentleman asked why so much more money had been spent in grants in Wales than in England. So much more money had been spent in Wales because the case in Wales was so much worse than in England.
MR. BRIDGEMANsaid he had not complained in the least as to that point.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid he was very glad the hon. Gentleman did not complain, for certainly they had relieved the tension in a good many Welsh schools by the expenditure of public money, opening them to the children of all denominations. The hon. Gentleman had also called attention to three schools at Pontfadog, but there, again, the hon. Gentleman complained that they had granted money which was to cover the whole cost of the schools. He joined issue with the hon. Member in regard to that complaint. No money was provided towards the cost of the site, and if they only granted money sufficient to provide for the cost of the building they were not covering the whole cost of the school, which must include both structure and site. They had paid nothing whatever towards sites, and he would be the last to allow Imperial money to be spent for a purpose of that kind. The hon. Member complained that they had not taken advantage of Section 18 of the Act of 1902, and had thrown the burden on the parish. He would point out that the beginning of the section provided that a part of the burden was to be put on the parish concerned, but that referred not to the grant which they asked from the Exchequer, or through the Board of Education, but to the expenses of the county

1831
council, who would have to carry out the provisions of Section 18. He presumed, therefore, that the cost of the site would be one of the items which would have to be allocated according to Section 18 of the Act of 1902. He believed he had replied to the whole of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman; if he had not, perhaps he would have an opportunity of doing so next session.
LORD R. CECILsaid the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had mistaken altogether the point of the criticism of the administration of his Department. His hon. friend the Member for Oswestry had not made any attack on the policy of providing an undenominational school in a single school area where there was a demand for undenominational teaching. It would be utterly opposed to the general run of his opinions, and to the general run of the opinions of those who sat in that quarter of the House. The right hon. Gentleman was pleased to appear surprised at that statement. It was perfectly well known, as he had endeavoured to convey for the last three years, that their object was not to maintain a monopoly of any particular kind of religious thought, but to provide equal treatment for all. That had always been their object since he had had the honour of a seat in that House. He had said so over and over again, and several of his hon. friends had said the same. Their objection had not been in the least to these grants, and if the right hon. Gentleman turned to the pages of Hansard he would not find the slightest criticism of the policy of providing grants for the purpose of building schools where the religious feelings of the neighbourhood required an alternative school to be erected. But they said, and said as strongly as they could, that the method adopted by the Government in this Bill and in previous Appropriation Bills was a very unfortunate method to adopt, and it was one of the reasons why he was going, in Committee on the Bill, to bring the matter to a point. Another reason was that the result of it had been that all sorts of irregularities had cropped up in the administration
1832
of the grant. The right hon. Gentleman had wholly failed to meet the case under Section 18 of the Act of 1902. That section gave a specific direction to the county council to charge to the locality such portion as they thought fit, not being less than one half, of any expenses incurred by them.
MR. RUNCIMAN: Incurred by the county council?
LORD R. CECIL: Incurred by the county council in respect of capital expenditure. That was an absolute mandatory direction. The grant did not in any way interfere with the duty of the county council to provide schools under the Act of 1902. It could not interfere with that; it was the sole business of the county council, the local education authority; it alone had to provide schools. The Board of Education could not build the schools; they had not the power to do so. All they did was to say: "If you build the schools we will give you a grant towards the building. We cannot do anything else." Therefore, it was still the expenditure of the county council—an expenditure which was met to some extent, not altogether, by the grant to the county council. All that the Government could do was to pay the local education authority a grant in aid of their expenses, and a portion of the expense was thrown by the county council on the locality. And it was very evident why it should be so. It was right that the locality which had the benefit of these schools should be a very considerable contributor towards their erection. That was the policy of the Act of 1902. Very grave inconvenience arose from the course which the Government had adopted in this light-hearted way at the beginning of last session, apparently not in the least knowing of the section of the Act of 1870 which was in their way, and only realising it in the course of a debate after eleven o'clock one evening. That as exactly what happened last year.
MR. RUNCIMAN: Does the noble Lord suggest that money provided by us, is an expense of the county council?
LORD R. CECIL: The school is an expense, and the money provided by you is a grant towards that expense. That is all it can be.
MR. RUNCIMAN: Does the noble Lord contend that the balance which is not provided by us is to be borne partly by the parish and partly by the county council? If that is so, that is what actually takes place.
LORD R. CECILsaid he was contending that all the Department could do was to provide the amount which would be required by the county council. The county council were bound by statute to throw at least half the cost of the school on the locality. They might pay half the whole amount out of the Treasury but that was all they could do. He did not say that it was a reasonable result, far from it; it was a highly unreasonable result, but it was the result which the Government had chosen. If they had passed a short Act legalising the matter, they could have put in proper conditions to meet the difficulty, and they would not have been put in the position of being forced to commit rather more than an irregularity, merely for the purpose of getting rid of difficulties which they themselves had created. It appeared to him a very unfortunate precedent, particularly in the case of a Government which set up to be a Government of financial purity, to set to the House and the country.
*MR. WILLIAM JONESsaid they were all glad to hear the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education, for both in tone and substance it would allay some suspicion that had arisen in Wales as to unfriendliness on the part of the Board of Education. The right hon. Gentleman had emphasised two or three things which appeared in one of the latest Reports of his Board, which stated that although it was true the secondary schools of Wales had in recent years been receiving grants from the Board of Education and had, in consequence, come within the regular inspection of the Board's staff, yet,
"The unifying and standardising effects of the Central Welsh Board still continue and are of determinative importance."
1834
He thought it would be a very easy matter to transfer some of that same kind of recognition into the Code. His right hon. friend had remarked upon the great interest shown in matters relating to education in Wales, and here were the words, not of a Welsh educationist, but the Report of his own Department—
"The needs and desires of the people most closely concerned have found expression and exerted influence on the schools, by means of the Central Welsh Board, from the outset and continuously, in a manner that has not obtained in any county in England."
They could not compare anything in England or Scotland, in connection with this question, with the desire which existed in Wales for secondary education. So the only thing now was to realise the words of the right hon. Gentleman when he said he was not going to curtail any of the powers of the Welsh Central Board at all, and that nothing should be done which was not of a nature fully consonant with the dignity of the Central Welsh Board and the responsibilities of its position. Mr. O. M. Edwards, the Chief Inspector of the Welsh Department, was a distinguished Welsh Nationalist who understood the Welsh atmosphere and environment, and he hoped he would, under the right hon. Gentleman's behest, come into intimate touch and close relations with the officials of the Welsh Central Board, even in regard to methods of inspection and curricula, so that the dual inspection should be reduced to the irreducible minimum. Inspection did not mean close and detailed examination. It meant practically coming more into counsel with one another, and understanding each other's system. It was done in America and on the Continent of Europe, especially in Germany and Switzerland, where the State inspectors periodically met the superintendents of education and the teachers in friendly consultation and conference. He hoped the same method would be adopted between the Welsh Department of the Board of Education and the Central Welsh Board. The Central Welsh Board in all matters relating to secondary education should be the reflex of the national mind, until they were able to set up what was the universal desire of Wales—a National Council of Education to cover elementary, secondary, and technical, and likewise the training of teachers, so as to

1835
secure perfect autonomy over all these systems. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his speech. It would be thoroughly understood by the Welsh people, and the Welsh Department would be in close harmony with the administration of the Welsh Central Board.
*MR. MONTAGUregretted that he was not yet satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's assurances about the Departmental Committee on half-timers. He said almost with scorn that he refused to pack his Committtee and to represent the various interests which must be affected adversely or favourably by the employment of half-timers. That was all very well when he came to consider the schemes of agriculture, but he noticed that the woollen manufacturers were very well represented. In answer to a question put by him the right hon. Gentleman said on the previous day that it would be impossible under the terms of reference to consider evidence which would lead them to recommend the increase of half time for children. He had now informed the House that the Committee would consider this and all other evidence on the subject, and although it was too late to urge the appointment of some agricultural representatives, this was an improvement, for which he thanked the right hon. Gentleman, very much on his previous attitude. But although the right hon. Gentleman considered there was nothing very much more important in this world than education, there was, when they were considering the education of children in primary schools in rural districts, one more important question still, and that was that they and their brothers and sisters who did not go to the schools should be well fed and clothed. Among those who dwelt in! towns there was often an opinion that children who were fortunate enough to spend their lives in the country were more fortunately placed. But nothing was more remarkable than the ease with which epidemics ran right through a village, the low power of resistance among country children to disease, and the prevalence of horrible, almost inexplicable ailments, such as consumption and cancer. This was often very largely due to lack of the good nourishment, which the parent, existing on low wages, was unable to afford. There was a very large amount
1836
of rural opinion directed to urging the Government to permit children to engage in healthy agricultural operations, and to attend school either in the evening or at the seasons of the year when they could not be employed in the open air, and it was contended that this possible sacrifice of education would be well atoned by the improved physique of the agricultural labourers. There was no doubt the real remedy for these evils was an increase in the wage of agricultural labourers, but so long as their wages were low they might be beginning at the wrong end by insisting upon education for children which was only obtained at the cost of their food. It would be a very serious matter if, now that the Committee was appointed, evidence of this important aspect of the case should be refused, and if his right hon. friend would only give them once more a complete assurance that all this evidence would be received by the Committee he would be more or less satisfied.
*SIR GEORGE WHITEsaid there were two or three aspects of the Congo question which were almost entirely overlooked in the debate on the Foreign Office Vote. Although the Foreign Secretary spoke on the outlook as somewhat hopeful, he confessed that the information given them did not appear very reassuring. If they could elicit from the right hon. Gentleman some further information on what he based his views it would be reassuring to a great many who at present felt a great deal of uneasiness at the fact that they were about to separate without any more definite understanding than they had received. The real causes of uneasiness that existed were mainly two. The first was that the debates in the Belgian Parliament had really partaken of a retrograde rather than a progressive character, and the second was that the cruelties against which so much indignation and feeling had been expressed had not yet in any sense abated. His right hon. friend had spoken of the desirability of keeping the commercial and humanitarian aspects of the question separate, but there were strong reasons why they should not be kept separate. The government of the Congo Free State was entrusted to the Belgian King after his profession of an earnest desire to secure good and beneficent government for

1837
the inhabitants, and it was because his professions were implicitly trusted that the Powers agreed to the conditions to which they did agree. Had the humanitarian views upon which this agreement was based been carried out, they would have seen from the commercial point of view a very different condition of things from that which existed now. He had no doubt that they would have had a prosperous trading community in the Congo Free State if the conditions of settlement had been faithfully carried out, instead of having now to look upon this so-called Free State as a devastated and almost worthless colony from the commercial point of view. In this case the commercial and humanitarian views of the question absolutely depended one upon the other, and were intertwined in a way which did not often happen in these colonial questions. The cruelties which had been connected with the administration of the Congo Free State were still going on, and he wanted to put it earnestly to his right hon. friend whether it was beyond their duty and their power to say that, while these discussions were going on in the Belgian Parliament, and the slow and devious processes of diplomacy were at work, the demons of cruelty and extortion should hold their hands. The statements which had been made inside and outside the House had been amply verified by the Government Papers, as well as by other reports that came to hand. These reports were still coming. They might be less terrible in the accounts they gave of mutilation and bodily injury, but they showed a long drawn out series of privations, equal to anything they had heard of in the past—villages destroyed, people driven forth to live as wild beasts, because they could not bring in the tale of rubber, men compelled to work many miles away from their homes, because the forests round about had been devastated, and women and children held as hostages whilst the men were away endeavouring to accomplish their impossible task. It was proved beyond doubt that the labour tale which these men had to yield meant in some instances 300 days out of 365. This indictment was proved by what appeared in the last White-book that was issued, and it was still strengthened by what was going on in this sad and miserable land. Such
1838
treatment was not only against the laws of all civilised countries, but what was of more importance to the House and to his right hon. friend was that it was in direct opposition to the undertakings on which the Congo Free State was founded. They might well ask of what value treaties were when they were allowed to be broken year after year as this treaty had been broken. If the life of one of our own fellow countrymen had been at stake the reparation demanded would have been followed up with vigour, and they would have had redress long ago. Here was a case in which the lives of tens of thousands of people had been destroyed, and their happiness blackened and blotted out, and he believed that we had a certain measure of responsibility, and no small measure, for the sacrifices which had been made to meet the cupidity of the monarch in direct contravention of the conditions upon which he was allowed to take over the government of that country. He could assure his right hon. friend that he would be supported in endeavouring to assert the rights of this country in regard to treaty obligations into which we in common with others had entered. This was practically the last chance they would have for some months of discussing this question in the House, and he for one felt horrified at the idea of separating without some assurance, and without receiving from the Foreign Secretary some answer which would enable them to feel that he intended to take a firm and consistent attitude in regard to the matter. They had demanded that unless at the end of this session annexation was agreed to on suitable conditions consistent with our treaty we should proceed under our treaty rights to take action, and he hoped that action, if taken—and he believed it would be taken in conjunction with America—would be successful. He wanted to point out to his hon. friend that the promise which the House received so gladly from him on 26th February he had not yet been called upon to fulfil, because the session had not yet terminated. But what were the prospects of the condition of things coming into existence under which he would have to act? In the columns of the Morning Post of Monday last,

1839
there appeared a telegraphic message to this effect—
"Debate on Colonial Bill reached dead-look, and as discussion cannot be brought to a close it will be broken off on 15th August and referred to the session of October next when the Bill and the Treaty of annexation may be withdrawn by the Government."
There was also a further telegram to the following effect—
"No annexation Vote this session, probably not this year. Object of King to prolong statu quo indefinitely believing we are not in earnest in our promise to interfere in administration of Congo Free State. Probably present Cabinet fall. Change of Government again bring delay by which King can engineer long delay before new Government."
All that was highly probable under the present condition of things, and notwithstanding the promise which they received with so much satisfaction on 26th February, he contended that something further must be done to meet this dilatory action on the part of the King and the Belgian Parliament. Just a few words in regard to the position of the Parliament itself. He confessed that those of them who had seen extracts or full reports of the debates in the Belgian Chamber had not been quite able to follow the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman when he said that a very different view was taken of the question of forced labour now from that which was taken a short time ago, and perhaps he would be able to tell them upon what that assurance was based. It seemed to him that the views expressed by many of those in the Belgian Parliament, and some of them in high authority, went directly adverse to the promises which had been made. M. Hymans, the Liberal Prime Minister of Belgium, said recently—
"The whole Chamber is agreed that the Act of Berlin gives to no Power the right of interference in the Congo."
M. Renkin, the Minister for Justice in the present Belgian Government, said—
"Property is a monopoly but it is not a monopoly of trade. Forced labour is necessary or civilisation is arrested."
M. de Smet de Naeyer said—
"The native is entitled to nothing."
And the President of the Appeal Court of the Congo State said—
"The native only respects the law of force and knows no other argument than terror."
1840
Those were samples of the expressions which had been used in the Belgian Parliament, and he failed to see that there was any change in the attitude of Belgium for the better in regard to this vexed question of forced labour. But the main point which he desired to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman was that which he had already mentioned, namely, the probability of further postponement, with all the unhappy conditions which now existed still going on. Even if annexation was agreed to by the Belgian Parliament it did not appear to him that the Ministry intended to act up to their treaty obligations. It was a very serious thing to contemplate that in the Colonial Bill they found that the leading officials on the Congo Executive at Brussels were to be in the new Belgian administration. A very small majority at the last election in Belgium had been returned in favour of the Government, and there would have been no majority at all in his opinion if the people of Belgium had known the whole history of this sad affair. He had never brought any indictment against the Belgian people. They had no sign whatever that the Belgian Government acknowledged that for which his right hon. friend had always firmly contended, namely, the rights of natives in the land, or that they wore prepared to allow the natives to trade between each other and outside traders. Therefore they insisted on commercial as well as on moral grounds that this basic right must be conceded before any steps towards annexation could take place. Forced labour under those conditions was slavery of the worst kind. The assurances in the White-book No. 3 from the Belgian Government were weak and insufficient, and even those assurances found no place in the debates in the Belgian Parliament to which he had referred. Therefore he thought they ought at once to repudiate the assumption that the Belgian rights in the Congo Free State, were equal to those of the other Powers in the Congo. His right hon. friend had done that already, but in reference to the assertions of the Prime Minister in the Belgian Parliament he felt that this repudiation should be more vigorous in character, so that the Belgian Government and

1841
the King might know that when we asserted this position we were determined to maintain it. What rights the Congo Free State possessed they obtained on specific obligations given not only to this country but to other Powers. They had defied those obligations and they now asserted that their rights were unlimited. He could give extracts one after another from speeches made in the Belgian Parliament asserting that those rights were unlimited and yet they took no exception to the despatch of the right hon. Gentleman which reminded them that after annexation the Congo State would remain subject to the provisions of the Berlin and Brussels Acts. They must not allow the Belgian Government to assume that the Congo administration had been properly carrying out the provisions of the treaty, because, in point of fact this administration had not only defied the international Powers who signed the treaty, but it had practically defied every provision of the treaty. One of the provisions was to help the natives to secure free trade and a variety of other things, and it would be quite germane to this debate to read the obligations which the King of Belgians took upon himself in connection with this matter in the first instance, but he would not do so as time would not permit. He was aware that in the government of native races we ourselves had not absolutely a clean slate. We had, however, always recognised that the land was the property of the people where there was a population to occupy it, whereas in this case all the land had been declared vacant land. They had some vague promises that grants might be made to the natives under certain conditions when annexation took place. As they were all aware, land was no use without labour, and labour under the conditions which existed in the Congo must be slavery. He hoped they would agree that no conditions in the form of annexation would be accepted which did not first of all admit the communal rights of the tribes where they existed. They should also insist that all those cruelties which were exciting in the minds of British people feelings of horror should be put an end to. There was one remedy which he
1842
hoped his right hon. friend would take in hand at once, and that was to appoint more Consuls in those districts in the Congo Free State. He felt that the presence of an active British Consul in one or other of these districts which were being devastated would have a very beneficial effect. He hoped this condition would be insisted upon, and that this country would withhold its recognition of annexation until such guarantees were given as would ensure the proper carrying on of the government of the country. It was now four years or more since these negotiations began, and many times in this Parliament they had discussed this very important question. It had also been discussed in great assemblies all over the country, and he thought the time had come when Belgium should be made to understand that no more dilatory process of dealing with this question would be allowed. He hoped that his right hon. friend would say that the time had come for some more definite action, This was in no wise a party question. It was a subject which had excited the indignation of a great many of our fellow citizens throughout the kingdom, and if ever there was a case in which the life-blood of a people called loudly for help this was a case, and he could not feel that they would call upon his right hon. friend in vain.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): Everyone knows that great anxiety and very deep interest are felt in this country with regard to the decision which the Belgian Parliament will, I presume, now take in a very short time. But I will ask those who do feel anxiety in regard to this question to remember also that, however much the decision may be a matter of anxiety to those who have treaty rights in regard to the existing Congo State, it must be a matter of very great anxiety at this moment to Belgium herself. The Belgian Parliament is on the eve of taking one of the most anxious and momentous decisions that have ever been before a State—the question of whether they should take over, with all its obligations and all the existing conditions now attached to it, this enormous territory of the Congo. It is really impossible for us to discuss with complete freedom, at a moment when the

1843
decision of the Belgian Parliament is in suspense, the whole question of the Congo. I do not think it is fair, and I think it would be resented there, if, while they are in the throes of a decision, they were to be harassed by constant declarations from a foreign Government on the subject of the Congo. What I thought the other day was necessary was that the position of the British Government and its view of its treaty rights should be made quite clear to the Belgian Government and published before the Belgian Parliament came to its decision. That has been done in the Papers already laid and published, and further Papers will be laid very soon. I should have been glad if they could have been laid this week, but it is only fair that they should be laid simultaneously here and in Belgium. I am now informed that they cannot be published before the beginning of next week, and the House will then have risen for what, after all, is to be a comparatively short holiday. I would ask hon. Members in advance to bear in mind that, although the Papers cannot be published for a week, yet, when the Papers do appear, further correspondence must take place, and before any final decision is come to which commits this country to any final view of the matter, the whole question will be seriously considered by His Majesty's Government. We shall also have to consider the view which the United States takes of the situation, and further Papers will be presented to the House before the country can be committed in any way to a final view by His Majesty's Government on this question. That covers one part of the question of my hon. friend. Another point which he pressed was—What will happen supposing the Belgian Parliament do not come to any decision to annex? I replied the other day to the hon. Member for Gravesend, and I take the same view of the situation which would then arise as I did when I then spoke. A very serious question would arise for us to consider. Supposing Belgium decided not to annex, and supposing we had, for an indefinite time, to deal with the existing state of affairs in the Congo, which we consider has been a violation of our treaty rights and of the obligations on which the Congo State was originally founded—if we have to revert to that situation—then a very serious question will have arisen. It
1844
cannot be a departmental decision on our part; it must receive the serious consideration of His Majesty's Government as a whole. All I can say now is that, if that situation does arise, it will receive the serious consideration of the Government as a whole, because we are not prepared to revert to the old condition of affairs under which for years our treaty rights have been violated. I trust that such a situation will not arise, but that the Belgian Parliament will soon come to its decision, and will not leave us in any doubt. But should the Belgian Parliament come to a decision not to annex, then, as I have said and I still hold, the situation is one which His Majesty's Government will have to consider very carefully, and whatever we do must be some new departure from the old policy.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLcalled attention to the prison treatment of the suffragists now undergoing terms of imprisonment for offences arising out of the "votes for women" movement. Whatever might be said of the merits of the claim, he maintained that the offences for which the women had been committed to prison were political offences. There were between twenty and thirty women, in prison for offences connected with the movement, and until quite recently he had not the smallest notion that there was anything rigorous in their treatment. Political prisoners were treated as first class misdemeanants, they were allowed to do their own work, they had their own food supplied to them, and they were allowed to see their friends. In short, they were placed in the same position as Dr. Jameson when he was committed to prison in connection with the Transvaal Raid. But he found that the treatment to which these ladies were subjected was very much the reverse. They had behaved like heroines, for, to do them justice, they had made no complaint themselves. He had not the slightest idea that these ladies were placed in a position of humiliation, and that they were subjected to severe physical hardships, until casually he looked at a newspaper and saw a letter from an old friend, Mr. Logan, in which he described what his daughter had endured during six weeks imprisonment. The treatment meted out to that brave girl was not what anyone should be

1845
subjected to for a suffragist offence. Mr. Logan stated in his letter that his daughter, who had just been released, was confined during twenty-three hours per day in a solitary cell, and that the hour during which she was let out was divided between attendance at chapel and a round of exercise. The cell was unwholesome, and it rarely let in the light.
*MR. SPEAKER: How does the hon. Member think this matter is relevant to the Appropriation Bill?
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The salary of the Home Secretary is in the Appropriation Bill. My contention is that the Home Secretary should have removed these ladies from the second class division to the first class division.
*MR. SPEAKER: That does not rest with the Home Secretary. It rests with the committing magistrates. That has been pointed out several times. It is entirely in the discretion of the magistrates.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Irrespective altogether of that discretion, the Home Secretary is the Minister who exercises the prerogative of mercy, and he can modify these sentences. The precedents are strong. There is the precedent of the Jameson case. There are the precedents of cases in which prisoners are sentenced to death and where the Crown commutes the sentence. Of course, if you think that I am in the slightest degree out of order, I will not pursue the subject now, but I will raise the question in another way. I am criticising the action of the Home Secretary in not advising the Crown to place those ladies, notwithstanding the magistrates' decision, in the position of first-class misdemeanants.
*MR. SPEAKER: I am afraid that is a matter which the Home Secretary has not in his power. It rests with the hon. Member to show that he has the power. I have heard it several times denied from the box.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: This is the constitutional law of the case. The Home Secretary is the Minister responsible for the exercise of the prerogative which the
1846
Crown has, and which has never been taken from it, to modify a sentence. He is the person who has really the control in this matter. He is the Minister of justice. These matters—prison regulations and the moving of offenders from one class of misdemeanants to another—are actually vested in him, and would be vested in him no matter what any statute says, unless the prerogative of mercy, vested in the Crown, is abrogated by statute, and, not only abrogated by statute, but abrogated by the previous consent of the Crown.
*MR. SPEAKER: These ladies were imprisoned by their own choice.
And, it being a quarter past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down for consideration by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

LONDON AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That this Bill be read a second time."
*MR. CHAPLINsaid he did not rise to oppose the Bill on general grounds; nor was he concerned to take that course, but he found that the Borough of Wimbledon and the Urban District of Merton were both of them included in the area defined in Clause 48, and that their inclusion would be highly injurious to those parts of the constituency which he represented. Those were the grounds upon which, in the absence of Members who had notices on the Paper, he opposed the Second Reading of the Bill, and when he had stated his reasons for doing so, he believed the House would agree that he was right. His objections were founded on the facts contained in the petition from the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the Borough of Wimbledon against the Bill. That borough contained an area of 3,220 acres, a population of 50,000, a rateable value of £454,000, and the needs and requirements of that area, and the population, as to the supply of energy

1847
both for lighting and power purposes were amply met already by the petitioners themselves, who were the undertakers for this purpose in that particular locality, under various Electric Lighting Orders dating from 1897 to 1903. In the case of Wimbledon under the Electric Lighting Order, 1887, confirmed by the Electric Lighting Order, 1897, Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1897, and in the case of Merton, under the Wimbledon Electric Lighting (Extension) Order, 1903, confirmed by the Electric Lighting Confirmation (No. 7) Act of 1893, the petitioners had erected a generating station and other works at a capital cost of no less than £182,394, and they were now supplying energy for the public lighting of their borough, and to consumers within their area of supply both for light and power. That being so, the petitioners very naturally complained that there was no justification whatever for this new company seeking to invade their territory and to compete with them in the supply of electric light or power. He submitted that in the case of an undertaking so recently established as 1893 it would be contrary to public policy, and would inflict a great and unmerited loss on the ratepayers of the district. In proof of this it was stated by the petitioners that the Bill had been so drawn that if passed in its present form it would enable the company to compete with the existing undertaking of the local authority both inside and outside the county of London in such a way as to deprive them of their best business, actual and prospective. And it would be idle to deny that if the company got the powers sought for and the capital to put them in force they would be enabled to take away some business from the borough undertaking, seeing it would be worth the company's while to offer a supply of electricity at very low or even unremunerative terms to the would-be consumers so as to cripple the existing undertaking and force the undertakers to sell their undertaking to the company. So far as the districts of Wimbledon and Merton were concerned, that was the case he had to submit to the consideration of the House against the Bill. He was not concerned to oppose the Bill on other grounds, but it seemed to him that it would be only right and fair with regard to these two places that they should be excluded
1848
altogether from Clause 48. If he had an understanding on that point he would not feel it necessary to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but until he had he should do so, and with that object he begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
*MR. TIMOTHY DAVIESsaid he was very glad to second the Amendment, although not for the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman. Even if the right hon. Gentleman withdrew his objection it was his intention to press the Amendment to a division. He was sorry that the Bill had been set down for Second Reading at so late a day in this part of the session when so many hon. Members had gone away, and when possibly more than half of them were absent from London. The progress of the Bill could not have been accelerated in any way by bringing on the Second Reading that night, and it might have been taken at a later date, when a full House could have been present. His objection to the Bill was founded on principle and not on a few details; and that could not be overcome by any suggested Amendments in Committee. They had been told that the whole of the London Members, with the exception of two, were in favour of the Bill. He thought that that was a most misleading statement, as there were a large number of representatives of London constituencies who were prepared to vote against the Second Reading. They had been also told that the two Members referred to were the agents of the Metropolitan borough councils, and that they took the very narrowest views on questions like that involved in the Second Reading of the Bill. He did not represent the Metropolitan borough councils, although his own borough agreed with the course he was taking. His object, and that of those who were supporting him, was to stop the Bill at this stage and prevent it getting into Committee, in order to save the money of the ratepayers and of the promoters, although with the latter he had not so much concern. They opposed the Bill because it proposed to give powers to the promoters gratis over a vast area which they had done nothing to develop, but which had been

1849
built up by the ratepayers' money to a very large extent. The area was different from any other in the world, and there were already within it thirty-five or forty authorities supplying electricity to the public. In the County of London alone there were sixteen municipal authorities. The area contained a large population which a few years hence would amount to no less than 10,000,000. It included large portions of four different counties. He admitted that the supply of cheap electricity was very important, but he could prove easily that there was nothing offered to consumers in the Bill which would come below the prices at present charged by existing authorities, especially to small consumers. The large consumers could take care of themselves and make their own bargains. There was nothing in the Bill to compel this company to supply electricity for power purposes at a rate lower than that at which it was already supplied. There were other things besides cheap electricity to be considered. If the Bill passed in its present form without some modification of some of its clauses it gave power to the company to break up streets without asking the permission of anyone. Great objection was taken to that power being given to the company. The number of authorities in the Metropolis who were entitled to break up the streets for their own purposes was already so large, and their powers were so extensive, and the expense caused to the local authorities by their actions so great, that he contended that this power should not be granted except in cases of absolute necessity. No one would contend that to have electric energy at the lowest price was a necessity. If this Bill was passed power would be given to this great monopoly to compete with its weaker neighbours, whether they were private companies or municipal authorities, and to supply for a certain period within particular areas energy at such a price as would compel their competitors to accept their terms for their undertaking. What would become of "cheap electricity" after that had been accomplished, and when at the end of ten or fifteen years this huge monopoly had the whole of the area entirely at its mercy? These great monopolies when they came
1850
to Parliament for powers always posed as philanthropists. From reading the Bill before the House one would imagine that eight or ten gentlemen were promoting the Bill as a matter of pure philanthropy, and were spending their money in order that people should be able to obtain cheap electricity. When they had obtained their powers it would not be 1d. or 2d., but 4d. or 5d. per unit that they would charge. Furthermore, there was no obligation on the part of the company to supply anybody unless they desired to do so. The President of the Board of Trade wished to insert a provision that this undertaking should be purchased by the London County Council at a certain date. Let the House contrast that with what transpired in 1906, when a Bill promoted by a "progressive" London County Council was before the Committee. That Bill was dropped owing to the then President of the Board of Trade seeking to make it obligatory upon them to provide energy to all who asked for it. If that was necessary then why not now? That right hon. Gentleman also suggested in 1907 that the Bill of that year should contain a clause giving power to the London County Council, if they so desired, to lease the undertaking until 1931, at which date the undertaking should resort entirely to the municipalities of London. This company now came asking for power to lease the undertaking until 1961, with a provision that it should be competent to the London County Council to purchase the undertaking in 1931. They could purchase it, but at what price? Not at the price of the cost of the material alone, but with the value of the goodwill for thirty years tacked on, and added to that price 10 per cent. was to go to the promoters. The thing was monstrous. The purchase clause was a sham, and was never intended to be anything else. He seconded the rejection of the Bill.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.' "—(Mr. Chaplin.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. PICKERSGILLexpressed his pleasure in supporting his hon. friend the Member for Fulham in this matter. The hon. Gentleman's constituency was at one end of London, and his own was at the other, and that might be taken as the extent of the feeling that had been raised by this Bill. He did not intend to refer to the purchase clause, monstrous though it was, except to point out that the form of that clause was an indication to the House of how little they could trust a Parliamentary Committee to protect the interests of London. Those who had these interests at heart, therefore, must take the duty upon themselves and give the Bill its quietus. He did not rest his objection to the Bill upon the purchase clause, which it might be contended could be altered, but on far broader grounds. He objected to the creation of great monopolies. He objected to these great powers being handed over to a speculative syndicate. Surely London had suffered enough from similar policy in the past. Recently London had to buy out the water companies at a price which had tied a dead weight round the neck of the ratepayers for the next three generations. Yet, with a light heart, the House was asked, and London Members were urged, to repeat the old mistake upon a colossal scale. It was proposed to bring into existence a company with a capital of £4,500,000, and to grant to that company power to manufacture, sell, and distribute in bulk electrical power for London, and an enormous area round London. It was proposed to authorise the company to tear up the streets in order to lay down their pipes, to abstract from the Thames 200,000,000 gallons of water daily, and to carry their line, whether the London County Council liked it or not, through the Blackwall and Rotherhithe Tunnels. He mentioned these matters to show how extraordinary were some of the concessions which it was proposed to confer upon Sir Hugh Bell, Bart., and the syndicate of gentlemen named in the Bill. The Bill gave to the new company powers to compete with the existing municipal distributors of electricity. He knew the borough councils were not popular in certain quarters, but he could not forget that they represented the London ratepayers, and that it was the money
1852
of London ratepayers—and there were many millions of that money—which was at rest in these municipal enterprises. It was said by those who differed from him that they ought to be willing to accept the Bill, because the London County Council was to have power to purchase the undertaking. The company would be put in a position to destroy businesses which had been built up with the money of the London ratepayers, represented by the London County Council; and, when those businesses had been destroyed, it was proposed to buy the company, again with the money of the ratepayers of London, represented by the London County Council. Such a grotesque scheme had never been conceived outside the realms of Gilbertian opera. It was a farce from many points of view, but it was a tragedy for the London ratepayers. It was said—and this weighed with some people—that the Bill would give a cheap supply of electricity; but he contended, without fear of contradiction, that there was no security within the four corners of the Bill of a cheap supply at all. It was true the second schedule contained a scale of prices, but it was not a scale of prices for electrical power to the ordinary consumer, but for the supply in bulk to distributive companies. It might be that large industrial concerns which took a very large supply would get it at a shade lower than the price they were paying at the present time; but there was no kind of security in the Bill for the protection of the man with a small industrial concern, whom this House ought to protect. He was surprised that some of his colleagues were going to support the Bill. He considered their reasons were absolutely inadequate, and he could hardly understand how hon. Gentlemen who, upon a hundred platforms had denounced this policy of handing over London to a speculative company, could now turn their backs upon their convictions and vote for the Bill. He cordially supported its rejection.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKINNON WOOD,)said he could hardly give a silent vote upon the question. His two hon. friends had dealt with it as if it

1853
were a very simple matter indeed, but he did not know any subject which was much more complicated than the present position of the supply of electricity in London, and there was no subject affecting great industrial interests which was in a more unsatisfactory condition. He might be entirely wrong and his hon. friends right, but the reasons they had adduced did not prove it in the least. The hon. Member for Fulham was quite inaccurate in some of his descriptions of the Bill. He had pointed out that the Board of Trade required the Council to enter into an obligation to supply electricity, and he said that therein they had treated the Council worse than they had treated this company. Personally, he objected, as the mover of the Second Reading of the Council Bill, to its being made obligatory; but in the sense in which it was desired to make that Bill obligatory this Bill was also obligatory. It was an entire mistake to suppose there was any difference between the two.
MR. TIMOTHY DAVIES: It is not made obligatory upon the company to supply the small consumers.
*MR. MCKINNON WOODsaid his hon. friend displayed his ignorance in that remark. The Council was not obliged to supply small consumers. There was this contradiction in the arguments of both his hon. friends. They complained in the first place that the company would compete with the borough councils, and secondly, that it would not have to supply small consumers. It was for the protection of the borough councils that the provisions had been put in, limiting their powers of supply. It was a bulk Bill for the supply of electricity to distributors. He held no brief for the company, but he might say that the price in the Bill was the lowest ever inserted in any Bill for supply in bulk, and it was lower than the County Council itself proposed. The complication of the question arose from the fact that powers were given for electrical supply at the time when there was no central authority in London. So far as they were given to municipal authorities, they were given to vestries in areas too small for the purpose. The supply
1854
of electrical power was a matter of great industrial importance and urgency. The Committee which dealt with the matter in 1906 pointed out that in their opinion the provision of further electrical power in London was so important and pressing that they did not view with favour the possibility of the question being indefinitely hung up. He entirely agreed with his hon. friend in prefering a complete municipal solution of the matter; and in 1906 he had the honour, on behalf of the London County Council, of introducing a Bill for dealing with the question by way of creating a municipal bulk supply, though he must point out that if that Bill had passed they would not have got a complete and unified electrical supply. He very much preferred that solution to the solution with which they were faced at the present day. The objects with which he brought the Bill of 1906 forward were three. First of all it was that they should have a cheap supply of electricity in London; secondly, that they might ultimately have a unification of that supply; and, thirdly, that they might ultimately have a municipal supply. He had not changed his views. He believed in these objects now and thought them desirable, and any action he might take on this subject would be in the direction of those objects and in no other direction, but it was not so simple a question whether those objects were best obtained by rejecting the Bill or by dealing with it as proposed by the President of the Board of Trade. Last year, so much did he feel the urgency of the question, that when the County Council brought in a Bill with modifications to which he was entirely opposed, he advocated its Second Reading, hoping that it might be so shaped in Committee as to bring about the objects he had described. There was no municipal Bill this year, and there was no possibility whatever of one. He would not for a moment support the Bill if it were not for the important modifications proposed in the instruction of the President of the Board of Trade, nor did he in the least approve of the proposed terms of purchase which came to them from a Committee of the other House. The period of fifty-two years was too long and other terms required modification; but it was

1855
obviously a matter which should be referred to a Committee of the House. If the terms of purchase were still somewhat exorbitant, then it would be a matter for consideration on Third Reading. He wanted to point out the different classes of objection to the Bill. First of all, there was the kind of objection represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon. He said: "Cut Wimbledon out of the Bill and I do not care what you do." Members came from various borough councils in London and their argument was just the same. To hear hon. Members speak one would imagine that this company had unrestricted power of competition with Wimbledon, Bethnal Green, and Fulham. He was not ignorant as to the sources of the opposition, but the powers of competition were most carefully safeguarded. If the proposals of the promoters of the Bill had been carried they would have had certain advantages to consumers, but they would have permitted more effective competition with the existing authorities. But that competition had been carefully safeguarded. The existing companies had had a great opportunity of settling the matter in their own way. It was a very extraordinary thing. They had had no whisper of opposition to the proposals of the existing companies, but if the proposals of the existing companies were carried without this Bill they were sterilising the development of electricity in London, because once they gave these companies the power of linking up they would hear no more of cheapening electricity. If they had put forward a definite scheme for a comprehensive supply and a large central generating station, they would have occupied an unassailable position. But instead of that they had failed to agree. They had two Bills representing two groups of these companies. They put forward the view that there was an adequate provision at the present moment, that they supplied all the power that was necessary, and he supposed, quite cheaply enough. He thought electricity ought to be about half the price it was at present. They actually said that their present generating stations were adequate. Were progressive London members to accept that
1856
position? Were they to be so indifferent to the industrial development of London as to let the matter stand in that position and allow the borough councils and the existing companies to go on as they were at present? Committee after committee had had that argument before them and rejected that solution. No Committee had taken the view of the existing companies. Then they had an opposition which was more serious—that of the borough councils. When he had the duty of trying to pilot a municipal bulk supply Bill through a Committee, his bitterest and most effective opponents were the borough councils. They cared nothing for the supply of electricity in London, but they did care for the supply of electricity in Fulham, Bethnal Green, and Wimbledon. They took a purely parochial view. Month by month, almost week by week, the County Council had applications from borough councils for capital in order to extend generating stations, which in many cases were too small for economic working, and too badly placed to supply cheap electricity. The remedy for that was to have a cheap bulk supply, so that the supplemental supply might not be got by an extravagant waste of capital, but be given from a large station which could supply on the cheapest possible terms. Seeing that the London County Council would not provide that generating station, which was the solution he would have preferred, he was not prepared to say he would not allow anyone else to do it. It was to the interest, not only of the ratepayers of London, and the vast district outside, which was growing and requiring more electricity, but of the ratepayers in the areas which his hon. friends thought they were defending, because if those ratepayers were going on in an uneconomical way their undertakings could not possibly be so profitable or supply at so cheap a rate as if they were getting their bulk supply on the best possible terms. But the crux of the whole question, and this was the consideration which would determine his vote, was that they had not only not got a proper municipal supply, but they had no prospect of a unified municipal supply under the present system. The right of purchase that existed was nominal and not real and

1857
effective. The borough councils, though they had a nominal right of purchase, had in only one or two cases any practical hope of ever buying the undertakings of the company. One company which supplied nine different local authority areas had only two generating stations, and it was a common case that the mains were purchaseable, but they would not be able to buy the generating stations. What was the position about this right of purchase? Were the borough councils losing anything substantial? They were only losing a nominal right in nine cases out of ten and not an effective right, because the small area, even if they could purchase, could never be a permanent solution of the question. These borough councils objected as strongly to a comprehensive bulk supply being given by the County Council as they now objected to a supply being given by a company. His hon. friend did not raise the question of the area or the engineering proposals, and that was very natural because the engineering proposals were the same as existed in the Council's Bill, and the area was very nearly the same. He was rather surprised at the hon. Member for Fulham objecting to seeing the County Council go outside its own area for a municipal purpose. That was not the kind of sentiment he expected from him. That was the very difficulty they had to deal with in the case of the waterworks, which led to the setting up of a board, and that was the difficulty which had given rise to proposals about traffic. One of the reasons why he welcomed this proposal was that it would give the County Council power to purchase an undertaking which extended beyond its area, because they must recognise that where they had a great town and surrounding areas, which were best served by municipal undertakings, they must give the great town the opportunity of serving the areas which were not within the artificial lines of local government. That was one of the great advantages in the proposal of the President of the Board of Trade. He recommended the House to give the Bill a Second Reading and refer it to a Committee, who would consider what would be a just scheme of purchase, a scheme which would be fair to the ratepayers of London. He did not agree
1858
with the present scheme, but he believed they could not consider this Bill by itself. They had to consider the position of the companies. The Committee had agreed to give them powers of linking up. It would be a calamity to give the existing companies a power of linking up without creating a bulk supply. They had to consider the matter altogether. His ultimate object was unification and municipalisation of the electricity supply. They could not get that all at once. If they had carried their Bills in 1906 they would only have got one step towards that end. He was not prepared to refuse to take a step which was practicable at the moment; and everybody knew that there was no probability of the present London County Council bringing forward a municipal proposal. The difficult questions of purchase and of deciding what was to be the ultimate authority would thus be settled, and he regarded that as so great a step forward, that he would vote for this Bill.
MR. ROWLANDSspeaking as a representative of three municipal authorities which had undertaken electric lighting and trams and were supplying great works with electricity, said that he was rightly asked by those authorities to look after their interest and welfare when a large supply like this was being created. The hon. Gentleman had put forward certain qualifications which he hoped might be embodied when the Bill came out of the Committee, and then appealed to them to let the Bill go to Committee, urging that if these things were not conceded they could deal with the Bill on Third Reading. But when they fought a private Bill on principle they must take it on the Second Reading. If they moved to reject a Bill on Third Reading the stereotyped argument was that they should have taken the earlier opportunity, that huge expense had been incurred and the Bill thrashed out before a Committee, and that it would be wrong to go against the Committee's decision? His hon. friend said he knew the sources from which the opposition sprang. He thought those were the right sources to look after their interests. He was not attacking private companies, but he

1859
was specially concerned in the question from the point of view of municipal authorities who had their own supply. Could they be expected to sit silently by while a big corporation came into existence, without taking every opportunity to defend the right given them by Parliament and to see that the welfare of the community was looked after? The promoters of this Bill were absorbing a large portion of Kent, and he wanted to know why they were going there. If the County Council did not purchase in the year 1931 then this large trust would have another ten years, and again if not bought up at the end of that ten years this huge corporation would continue for a further period. Practically this great corporation would say to the municipal authorities: "Although we have no authority over your area we are going to purchase you out of existence." Did the Government think that was an easy task? Why was the Water Board formed? Simply because there were a series of water companies in existence the areas of which were not confined to the area of the London County Council, but went out into the other surrounding counties. That was exactly the case in this Bill. The moment an attempt was made to buy out those outside areas they would say: "If you are going to purchase our electric supply we must have a voice in the matter." The same thing would arise in connection with the electric supply as happened in regard to the water supply.
MR. MCKINNON WOOD: But we have avoided that.
MR. ROWLANDSsaid that was not so. On the contrary they were creating it. In his district they had a distinct supply of their own which they thought they could control themselves. There were other municipal authorities in the area dealt with who had control of their own electric lighting and trams, and supplied the local industries with electricity, and of course, they meant to have a voice in this matter. He supposed that his experience with regard to municipal light in London was not shorter than that of any other hon. Member in the House. In fact, he thought he had been
1860
mixed up with it longer than any other hon. Member. He knew the great difficulties attending any attempt to get areas extended. He was not going to deal with the question of purchase because that had nothing to do with it. His hon. friend had thrown that question to the four winds of heaven. He would like to know what security they had after passing the Second Reading that they would have any better terms put in upstairs. They were all aware that the details of the Bill must be discussed upstairs, but the measure having passed the Committee they had to look at the terms inserted with the consent of the promoters, and so far as they knew those were the terms that would pass. If they filtered those terms root and branch they would take away the whole of the demand of the promoters; they would have incurred an enormous expenditure of the money of the local authorities, and on the Third Reading they would have to reject the measure. What did this octopus want to do? It wanted to cross the Thames through the tunnels constructed at the expense of the ratepayers, and come into the areas of the local authorities, and it was not going to supply the small consumer—the localities could do that, because it would not pay. It was said that they would have the protection of the Board of Trade, but he preferred not to rely upon that. In his district they had now the power to supply their own manufacturers with electricity, and they were doing it. He was strongly in favour of a cheap supply of electricity, but he was also strongly and determinedly opposed to creating another trust. Along with some of his hon. friends he had fought gigantic monopolies like the water companies, year after year, and he was old enough to remember when Mr. Cross's Bill was introduced in the latter part of the seventies. They succeeded in getting rid of the water companies and they had got a public supply. Now they had an important measure promoted by the Board of Trade, passing through a Joint Committee, the object of which was to get all the private interest in the Docks of London into the hands of a public authority, in order that the well-being of the community at large might be looked after. That

1861
Bill provided for things which he did not care for, but they had always realised that it was necessary to have one great public authority representing varied interests, from the working men to the wharfingers and the merchants, and consequently they created a public authority to manage the river. If they could introduce a scheme to constitute a body for the purpose of looking after the interests of municipal authorities now supplying electricity in bulk they were prepared to consider it, but with the experience they had had of these great enterprises he hoped they were not going to create any more of them. The time to fight this Bill was now. They were not going to allow to be created a huge trust which had not in any way promised them a cheaper supply of electricity nor undertaken to meet the difficulty of giving a bulk supply under proper conditions. He contended that this was a question which ought to be in the hands of the representatives of the people.
*MR. CAVEsaid he was going to vote in the same lobby as the hon. Member who had just spoken, but he came to the same conclusion from a somewhat different point of view. He was not so much in love with municipal enterprise of all kinds; but Parliament having for many years not only allowed but encouraged local bodies to supply electricity, he did not favour the proposal to create a private body now, with power to compete with the local bodies. The hon. Member who from the Treasury Bench said he was in favour of the municipal solution had a strange way of showing it. It was said that this Bill would supply them with cheap electrical energy, but there was no provision in the Bill that the consumer should get the energy cheap. Even if a limit were inserted it would be an illusion. This great body might begin with cheap energy and the effect would be to destroy other sources of supply. When that end had been achieved and the other competing authorities had gone, prices would go up and the consumer would have to pay a great deal more. The hon. Member who spoke from the Treasury Bench said that if they allowed existing companies to combine they would put up the price. Surely that
1862
was equally true of the body they were proposing to create under this Bill. He noticed that the purchase clause had gone, or at any rate, it had been abandoned.
MR. JOHN WARD: They are going to propose thirty years goodwill.
*MR. CAVEsaid that they were going to give purchasing powers to the London County Council After all, the local authorities outside of London thought that they could manage their own affairs, and the proposal that the London County Council, with all its merits, should have power to extend its hand, not only over the great county of London, but over three neighbouring counties to the exclusion of the county councils of those counties, was one which he could not support. He did not wish to say a word against the London County Council, but the proposal now made was antagonistic to the principle of local government, because it proposed that one county council should have power to go into the area of others. The instruction proposed to be given to insert a power for the London County Council to purchase the undertaking would make the Bill worse.
MR. CROOKScould not understand why the Government had taken up this Bill. There were many interesting private Members' Bills which they might have taken up which would have been a real boon to the community, instead of giving facilities for a company like this to fleece the public. His hon. friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education had used, an elaborate argument to show how they could get over the trouble. He had always thought it a wicked thing to get over trouble in our own time, and leave it to somebody else. If there was fighting to be done, why did they not tackle it themselves? Had the Government taken this course because they wanted certain opposition out of the way at the next election? The question was whether what was now proposed was right or wrong. These people were not coming in from love of the small trader. They were giving these people power for all

1863
time, and it was quite easy to see what would happen. Why were these great interests being studied? This Bill, while looking after certain interests, would leave all the other people out. Why did not the Government say to all the authorities in and around London: "We will create a board and give you representation upon it." That would have been a strong policy to pursue, and no one would have dared to say that the board was being created in the interest of a few people who desired to do the work for the public good, while also desirous at the same time of getting a little more percentage out of it for themselves. The question in connection with these enterprises always was "How much more can I get out of it? "He could not understand the late Progressive Leader in the London County Council speaking in favour of the Bill. There ought to be no easy path to an honest goal, and if they had to fight, let them fight now, and not put it off to future generations. They were asked to create the biggest trust that London had ever known or ever would know, and one that left the water companies absolutely in the shade. He thought he was entitled to ask whether there were many parties in the House who were interested in the Bill, and whether the Deputy Speaker, if he was in the Chair when the question was put, would instruct that no person interested in it should go into the lobby to vote upon it. They were entitled to know that because it left a prodigious amount of suspicion in his mind. He hoped he might be wrong. He hated to think that anybody would vote from personal interest, but they should be satisfied on the point. Why had the Government taken it up? What was behind it all? He asked the Government to leave the matter entirely to the House rather than that a profit-mongering scheme like this should be foisted on London and the neighbouring districts.
MR. DICKINSONsaid that the discussion showed how very complicated the question now before the House was. It was a question which could not be decided by a mere application of first principles, however lofty those principles might be. He
1864
would like to say a word in reply to the observations that fell from his hon. friend the Member for Kingston and others with regard to the position of the local authorities outside of London. They asked why the local authorities outside London should be affected by the Bill. The answer was to be found in the considered Report of the Committee of the House which sat in 1906, which showed that no promoter could possibly put forward a scheme for the bulk supply of London which would not apply outside. There were two paragraphs on page 4 of the Report in the following terms—
"The Committee are of opinion that the best means of providing for the supply of electrical energy in bulk, and for power and motive purposes, is by one large and inclusive scheme extending not only over the entire County of London, but also to adjoining boroughs and districts."
"For the purpose of carrying out such a scheme some central authority is required with ample statutory powers and corresponding duties. In addition to the proposal of the London County Council various other proposals have been placed before the Committee. After giving full consideration to this question the Committee are of opinion that the London County Council should be the authority."
That, he submitted, settled the question raised in regard to the outside supply. He admitted that some of the municipalities were supplying electricity now with very great success, but, nevertheless, if it could be shown that the public could be better and more cheaply served by means of a large supply of electricity in bulk, which could be sold through the medium of the local authorities, that was a matter worthy of the consideration of a Committee of the House. Personally, he had a great deal of sympathy with the arguments of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway opposite, but he was bound to say in fairness to the Government, and in fairness to those who supported the course which had been taken, that the hon. Members who had spoken as representing London constituencies had spoken without a full knowledge of the facts. His hon. friend the Member for Woolwich had taken up a very strong position in regard to this Bill. The hon. Member said that he could not understand why the late leader of the Progressive Party should stick up for the Bill. He hoped

1865
that he would be able to show to the House that his hon. friend in so acting was doing what was really best for London, and for the municipal administration of the whole of the surrounding area. It was for that reason he supported the proposal of his hon. friend that this Bill should be allowed to go upstairs to a Committee.
Last year there was a Bill before the House, promoted by the Progressive majority on the former London County Council, to authorise that body to provide a bulk supply and to buy out the existing companies in London. That Bill would have enabled the County Council to supply the London borough councils at a very much cheaper rate than they could supply themselves, and would have afforded the only arrangement whereby the chaotic condition of the present supply could be made to work to the advantage of the public. He did not believe that the House realised the position of London in regard to the supply of electricity. There were no fewer than sixteen borough councils and thirteen different companies which supplied electricity at present, each of them having their own customers. As regarded the companies they were all purchasable at one time or another—in 1914, 1918, 1921, 1928, but all by 1931. A provision in the Bill of last year gave power to the London County Council to purchase all these undertakings at the dates at which they fell due, and the reason for this was that even with the existing powers of purchase, it would be impossible for many of the boroughs actually to exercise their power of purchase in 1931, because their areas were not conterminous with the areas of supply by the companies. They had not all of them a generating station and some of them had their generating station outside their area. It was therefore thought advisable in the public interest that in 1931 there should be one authority who should have control over so large an area so that it might buy the whole of the combined undertakings when these were purchasable in 1931. It was for this purpose that the Bill of the Progressive Party in the London County Council was brought forward. The electorate of London, however, had refused in a very distinct and definite way to authorise the Council to institute a bulk supply, and
1866
immediately after the election the Moderate majority in the London County Council practically said that they would have nothing whatever to do with the bulk supply of electricity. He maintained that the house was bound to consider this question from a practical point of view, and to recognise that the municipal authority in London for the present was not willing to undertake anything like the duties which such a Bill would have placed on them. So those who were anxious to protect the interests of the public thought it right to ascertain whether there was any other means of attaining that end. He thought they could, and that if this Bill went to a Committee upstairs with the Instruction which had been put on the Order Paper by the Board of Trade, it would come back in such a form as would enable the public in a very short distance of time to enter into possession of their rights and to supply electricity in bulk. He believed that without endangering the principle of ultimate public supply and possession an immediate and cheaper supply could be achieved by the Bill. Cheapness was absolutely essential, and that could be attained, because there was a clause in the Bill to establish what was known as a sliding scale, which would reduce the price in concert with increases in dividend. Also the very fact that this company would have power to compete with other companies, would undoubtedly lower the price. He believed that no one in the House would object to that, but that they did object to the borough councils being placed in a position of competition with this company. He certainly would not vote for any Bill which he thought had any power in it which would destroy the municipal work carried on by the borough councils. If the Bill were carefully read, he believed that the fears of the borough councils in this respect had not the serious foundation which was represented. It was proposed that the company should not have the right to supply electricity to small customers without the consent of the borough councils, and if the borough councils objected, the company could appeal to the Board of Trade, which, after going into the whole question of capital expenditure, might over-rule the

1867
objection as unreasonable. But even this point could be re-considered by the Committee upstairs. He did not see how anyone could desire to see the borough councils displaced as long as they were doing good work. This was the first time a Bill establishing a bulk supply had contained a clause of purchase at all. In 1898 the Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons considered the question. The London County Council then strongly represented that the bulk supply undertakings should be purchased, but that Committee reported against the proposal, stating that bulk supply was not a proper subject for municipal control. But they had got in this Bill a practical operative purchase clause. The main difficulty lay in the fact that there was no authority which could properly purchase the undertakings at the present moment, and therefore it was desirable that the Committee upstairs should establish the London County Council as an authority to purchase the bulk supply. His hon. friend had said that the terms were not good, but the Committee upstairs could vary them. He himself thought that the terms were somewhat harsh, and that the period before which purchase was to be made was too long. The great thing, however, was that the company's undertakings were to be purchasable at one time or another. An objection had been raised as to the possibility of this company buying up the existing companies, and so becoming a great monopoly. That was a matter with which the Committee was perfectly capable of dealing; but even under the present Bill the company could not do so without the leave of the Board of Trade. However, the Committee could strengthen the to the Bill so as certain that provisions of the make it absolutely company could not purchase the other undertakings. That was the position in which the London Members were satisfied to let the Bill go upstairs. If they allowed the present opportunity to pass of practically securing to the public of London the reversion at no distant date of the whole of the electrical undertakings, he thought they would be making a very serious mistake. It was
1868
for that reason that he asked the House to give its support to the Second Reading of the Bill accompanied with the Instruction to be moved by the President the Board of Trade.
*MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid that the hon. Member who had just spoken had perhaps better explained this Bill and the motives of those who promoted it than any Member who had previously addressed the House. The hon. Member was referred to somewhat sneeringly as "the late leader of the Progressive Party" by speakers below the gangway, who saw in him an illustration of the inevitable tendency of office to modify extreme opinions. It seemed to him that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the front bench must feel that hon. Members below the gangway had been extremely ungrateful to them, for not recognising that these proposals really constituted a Machiavellian scheme to convert the London County Council into the lighting authority for the whole of London. The process was quite obvious. They could not themselves provide a supply of bulk electricity, but they consented to the creation of a company for that purpose, in order subsequently to purchase its business. Then they would take powers by the two other Bills to take over the rights now possessed by the borough councils. In the end they would see the London County Council not only in possession of the revenue of all those powers, but the lighting authority for London, making it the greatest employer of labour in London, and a machine which could be manipulated for electoral purposes by the Government of the day. At present he did not know whether he was voting on the Bill as it was or the Bill with the proposed Instruction attached to it. It was obvious that the Instruction giving the London County Council powers of purchase would be carried, and therefore he had to regard the Bill as having that Instruction attached to it. As the hon. Member opposite who spoke for the Government (Mr. McKinnon Wood) mentioned Westminster, and did not seem to be well informed upon that subject, he would state what the position was. Westminster was possessed of powers of purchase under the

1869
Acts of 1882 and 1888. The two great electric companies which supplied Westminster, the St. James's Company and the Westminster Company, combined in 1905 to erect a great generating and bulk supply station for Westminster, outside its local government area, in Marylebone. Although the hon. Gentleman was quits right in saying that under these Acts Westminster had no power to purchase the generating station, that power was specifically given by the Act of 1905 authorising the station. The city of Westminster was therefore in a very favourable position, and when those powers matured could possess, both as to bulk supply and distribution, a complete self-contained and self-controlled electric system. If hon. Members would refer to the Bill they would find that Clause 90 protected these powers possessed by Westminster. It was very explicit, and the question he wished to ask was what bearing had the Instruction, to be moved by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, on that clause. It was a mandatory Instruction to the Committee to confer permissive powers on the London County Council, and he wished to know whether it would render Clause 90 of this Bill nugatory. If it interfered with the protection afforded to Westminster by the clause, he should vote against the Bill.
*SIR JOHN BENNsaid he associated himself most fully with the views expressed by his hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Education. He asked the House to direct attention to three points—first, London badly wanted a bulk supply of electricity; secondly, how was that to be obtained; and, thirdly, the opposition which had been brought to bear against this private Bill with regard to bulk supply. Those borough councils who had electrical undertakings at present thought they could supply it. During the last few years Committees of both sides of the House had inquired into the matter, and had come to the conclusion that the present conditions of generating electricity in London were very bad. They were put upon London by no Liberal Government. The system of splitting up London into borough councils, and allowing them to set up
1870
their own electric stations on a sort of chandlers shop system with a single eye to the parish pump instead of to the general good, had led to confusion of the most distressing character. Two Parliaments had recognised that the only way to supply London was in bulk, so that by means of a large generating station or one or two stations on the outskirts of the Metropolis great manufacturers might be given a chance of making London flourish by being supplied with electricity at bottom prices. He had hoped that great object might be achieved by municipal enterprise. They tried it in 1906, when they brought in a permissive Bill which left the borough councils alone. The very men who were at the back of the opposition to-night prevented the passing of that Bill. [Cries of "No."] He would not make that statement unless he were prepared to fortify it. The hon. Member for Fulham, who seconded the rejection of the present Bill, quoted from a document which he now held in his hand. The opposition was engineered by the borough councils of London, and the document was signed by Mr. Mansfield Robinson, Clerk of the Shoreditch Vestry, the same gentleman who engineered the opposition to the municipal Bill of 1906 and to the second attempt of 1907. Of course, the Members representing the boroughs of London stood up for the borough council installations; but he asked the House to look at the matter from the wider point of view. Some Gentlemen opposite had not had the advantage of studying the question from the London point of view and had not, as some of them had, devoted a long time in trying to get at the bottom of it; and he wished to tell them that if they followed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon into the lobby, they would be thwarting municipal development. He had to say with the greatest regret that the present London County Council would not look at a municipal settlement. Supposing they were on the eve of another London County Council election, and that they put as the first item on their programme, another municipal electricity scheme, with £5,000,000 capital, London would not look at it. It was done in the memorable

1871
right conducted by his hon. friend, and for the moment London would not have it. The hon. Member for Westminster properly understood this measure. He said it was a Machiavellian scheme for creating an electrical supply by the London County Council. The hon. Member was absolutely right. If the Bill were adopted with the instruction suggested by the President of the Board of Trade, he hoped and believed that in the fulness of time they would have the same happy result as was achieved under the Tramway Act of 1870. That Act gave companies free running power in London for tramways, but a Liberal Government inserted a wise purchase clause, and the Act was now called the Tramway Charter. After the companies had been running some time, the London County Council stepped in and were now establishing one of the finest municipal tramway systems. They were not able immediately to get through a municipal measure for the bulk supply of electricity, but, if these Instructions were adopted with regard to the present Bill, and the purchase terms were amended as they ought to be, they would have an opportunity of doing with regard to electricity what they had done with regard to the tramways. The London County Council, under the proposed purchase clause, would be able to step in and possess themselves of another heritage, and they would, he believed, manage the electrical undertaking as successfully as they had managed the tramways. He should therefore vote for the Second Reading of the Bill. He believed hon. Members would be ill-advised if they voted against it under the impression that they were thereby voting for a municipal supply against a company supply. Those who understood the matter and desired to serve London would follow the proposals of the front bench; and if that were done, he thought the time would come when this great enterprise would become possessed by the people of London as an addition to those municipal enterprises which in the past had worked such good for the metropolis. He entirely associated himself with the late progressive leader of the London County Council.
MR. FORSTERsaid that as the representative of a part of the county contiguous to the municipal area of London he had been in some doubt as to which way his vote, should be cast, but he was grateful to the hon. Member who had just sat down for having removed any possible doubt in his mind. He had told them that London was anxious for a bulk supply of electricity and that the most desirable way in which electricity could be supplied in bulk was by the creation of a private company.
*SIR JOHN BENN: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I said it was the only possible way for the moment. I think the municipal supply the most desirable.
MR. FORSTERsaid the hon. Member had in his mind the acquisition of the undertaking by the London County Council, and would only create it in the present case in order that it might be so acquired.
*SIR JOHN BENN: Precisely.
MR. FORSTERsaid they now knew how the matter stood. The hon. Member for Woolwich was perfectly justified in using picturesque language in describing this. He said it was a Parliamentary job, or used an expression of that kind. Would it not have been a little more honest to say they would sanction the creation of a private authority subsequently to be acquired by the London County Council, but they adhered to the view they had so often, so strongly, and so consistently expressed, that the only possible authority for the creation of electricity in bulk was the County Council? He remembered night after night, speech after speech, on Bill after Bill, when the hon. Gentleman opposite took up that attitude and flatly refused his sanction to the creation of companies for the supply of electricity in bulk. It would be more honest of hon. Gentlemen if they made it plain that they only supported the Bill because they intended to destroy the company as soon as possible. He would like to make it plain why he intended, now that he understood the situation, to vote against the Second Reading.

1873
He at any rate was consistent. He still believed that the best war of supplying electricity in bulk was not by municipal enterprise, but rather by private enterprise or by the creation of a body ad hoc. He did not believe the London County Council was the best authority to control the supply of electricity in bulk. Then that part of his constituency which was affected objected very strongly to being brought under the control of the London County Council in any way. He did not think that even the right hon. Gentleman opposite could make it a matter of blame to them that they should prefer that local autonomy which had formed so prominent a plank in the edifice of his speeches. He entered a very strong protest against the line which had been taken by supporters of the Bill, and he thought it was a pity that the President of the Board of Trade did not make it clear sooner that the whole object of the Bill and of the Instruction that he had put down was that the company which they were creating should be destroyed at the earliest possible moment. His constituents thought they would be better off if the Bill did not pass.
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD of TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,)said he was very sorry indeed for the position in which the hon. Member for Woolwich found himself. He had made a very excellent and charming speech, with his usual gifts of humour and flexibility, and they all knew that the views he put forward on these subjects were soundly and sincerely democratic. But what was the company in which his hon. friend found himself? The hon. Member for Sevenoaks and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon. What an unholy alliance! What a strange combination to fight for the interests of the people of London! He hoped the House would allow him to state the reasons which induced him to counsel them to send the Bill up for examination by a Committee. There were three Bills and three Instructions had been put down in regard to them. They could only discuss one Bill, but they ought not to overlook the other two, because the three Bills were inter-related, and they proposed to ask the House to apply a common policy in regard to all three.
1874
He had taken the advice of many of those who, on other subjects, had always on previous occasions voiced the opinion of the majority of the late Progressive members of the County Council and who at present voiced the opinion of the majority of the Liberal Members for London. It was in consultation with them that the Board of Trade had adopted the policy of counselling the House to agree to the principle of the Bill, subject to examination by Committee, and thus to afford every facility for existing private enterprise and for those who now sought the sanction of Parliamentary authority to develop the best possible system of electrical supply for London, and to arrange for the transference of that supply at the earliest possible moment to the government of London. At present there were sixty-six different generating stations in the London area, and fifty-five main distributing centres. The price of electricity in this city was on the average 1·38d. over the whole area. That was considerably more than double as much as the price in Newcastle, and yet the size of London and the area would make it possible, according to all the expert engineers whose opinion he had consulted, to make the cheapest possible supply. The industries of London were specially suited to derive benefit from the cheap supply of electricity. This new plan in its general aspects proposed to establish a great outside tap, by which through the agency of the existing distributing centres, the mains of London could be flushed with cheaper electricity, and railways, canals, and navigation could be supplied. The whole intention of this proposal was that there would be a superior economy from the production in bulk. That superior economy was derived from the great scale of production, from the advantage of possessing modern plant, and above all from the great advantage of having ocean-borne coal delivered in the close proximity of the generating station. He had heard it said that the cheapness resulting from this proposal would not reach the small consumers. He did not think this production in bulk could be carried out without benefiting the small as well as the large consumer. The price

1875
charged would be subject to periodical revision by the Board of Trade, who could eventually compel the undertakers to pass on any general benefit they received in the course of time to the consumer. He did not think it possible to flush London with cheap electricity without that benefit reaching the small consumers. An hon. Member had said that this did not promise to give a cheap supply. It promised to give a supply of bulk electricity at half the prices which ruled in the Metropolis at the present time. Of course, he did not say whether it would perform that promise, but the Committee would decide that point. All he could say was that all the ordinary harnessing apparatus for controlling private enterprise according to modern ideas was in full operation in the Bill. The maximum prices were fixed, and fixed at a lower rate than had ever been specified in any Bill before; there was compulsion to supply, and the usual limitation of dividends by a sliding scale; and in order to ensure that it was not a bogus enterprise it was provided that the whole enterprise should lapse unless £600,000 was subscribed in the first year, and unless substantial progress was made in the second. The opposition to the Bill came from two very different sources. It came from those who on perfectly sincere grounds and on grounds of regulated opinion were opposed to private enterprise of any kind. It came from those who voiced the narrowest selfishness of minor localities. It was those who were arrayed against them in an unfortunate and miscreated alliance. The borough councils had, no doubt, rendered great services, and he would be the last in the world to urge the House to speak ungratefully of them. But a borough council could not claim immunity from all competition which most improvements created. The hon. Member for Fulham had spoken of the purchase terms. They were not committed to those purchase terms. All he suggested to the House was that they should have these terms thoroughly scrutinised by a trustworthy Parliamentary Committee. He did not submit them to the House with the imprimatur of the Government bench at all; but never before had any purchase clause been inserted in a bulk supply Bill which
1876
had been passed. In addition to that they must remember that they were not dealing with a brand new area, but with an area already fully occupied, in which the operation of the new supply authority would be very strictly guarded in reference to the interests of the existing occupants of the ground. He agreed that the transference which the hon. Member for Sevenoaks had referred to was necessary and desirable. The enterprise would really not involve any very serious or complicated financial operation. As-to the attitude of the Board of Trade in the matter, they were charged with particular duties with regard to the Bill. The Board of Trade was a great deal more than the party officer who for the moment represented it. The Board of Trade was a great accumulation of valuable knowledge; it was an immense ramification of machinery all over the country, operating and intervening under every conceivable condition in the numerous stages of the daily life and labour of the people. From the point of view of the Board of Trade, when they approached questions like this they were compelled to see in the foreground two main facts—the greatness of London and the importance of a cheap supply of electricity. They saw the greatest city in the world, with six millions of people; the greatest manufacturing centre; the greatest port, the greatest centre of human activity. They saw six millions of people living under conditions of the highest artificiality, and following these facts from a purely non-party point of view, whether collectivist or individualistic. Moderate or Progressive, capital or labour, they saw that to all these millions, rich and poor alike, whether in their units or in combination, cheap and abundant electricity was scarcely less important than cheap and abundant food. By all means let them discuss the true principles of municipal government, but let them not deny the assistance which applied science alone could give to the great mass of the people for whose welfare they were responsible. Any hon. Member who stood between this great city of London and an absolutely modern and uniform system of electric supply would run the gravest risk and assume the gravest responsibility. This was the

1877
fifth successive year in which an attempt had been made to furnish London with a bulk supply. Huge sums of money had been spent on fruitless proceedings. The uncertainty had hung like a pall all the time over electrical enterprise. The initiative of private promoters had been seriously discouraged. Nothing had been done for five years. Meanwhile, municipal enterprise had not advanced to fill the gap, and there was no immediate prospect that it would advance. In these circumstances, the House of Commons would take a very grave decision if it swept out of court the elaborate proposals now put forward without allowing them to receive the detailed attention that only an impartial Committee of the House of Commons could give. He could not conceive it being argued that a rush was being made upon the House by private individuals and corporations to grab concessions against the commonwealth for the exploitation of private interests. In 1903 the number of Private Bills deposited with the Board of Trade was 188, and in succeeding years the numbers were 159, 131, 151, and 102, an average for the period of 147. In the present year only ninety-eight such Bills had been deposited. This was the smallest number of Private Bills deposited in a session. Was it reasonable to contend that the House could be accused of being unduly lax in regard to the private enterprises put before them? Hon. Members on the Labour benches were quite consistent; they were against private enterprise in any form, and in favour of organised communal enterprise not carried on for profit. But what was to happen in the years intervening between the disappearance of private enterprise and the time when communal enterprise was to reign supreme throughout the land? He submitted to the House that they would take a grave responsibility if they dismissed this great enterprise of solid material advantage to London without allowing it to be examined by a Committee. He would not be doing his duty in the office which he had the honour to hold if he did not put this counsel before the House. After all, every one was giving up something. The Moderates acquiesced in the proposal to place upon the County Council ultimately the ownership of this large under-
1878
taking. The companies themselves had acquiesced in the transfer. Those who had been Progressive leaders had come to believe that this scheme was, on the whole, in the interest of the great community which they had represented. The opposition to the Bill had not been on broad principles, but of highly organised minor interests. He earnestly appealed to the House that the measure might proceed.
MR. ROWLANDS: Take off the Government Whips then.
*MR. CHURCHILLasked if the hon. Member felt that he would not vote according to his conscience if the Government Whips were telling? He did not think they should allow themselves to rise to any tragic height of tension in this matter. The proposition before them was a very simple one. It was, whether they should allow a proposal of this character to be examined carefully and properly by a Parliamentary Committee reserving to themselves the fullest right of rejection on Third Reading if, after that examination, it did not suit their views, or whether they should, without even investigating the proposal, cast aside the last attempt, for a considerable number of years, either private or municipal, to provide London with a bulk supply of electricity. A Committee of that House two years ago examined the whole question. They reported that the need of a bulk supply for London was important and pressing. If the House were to reject this measure on Second Reading, the need would still continue important, but it would press no more.
MR. LYTTELTONcongratulated the right hon. Gentleman on having enunciated what he thought was a most excellent principle on this subject—a principle which they had always heard contradicted by the right hon. Gentleman himself and by hon. Gentlemen opposite. He supposed that the Party on that side of the House had maintained that no more excellent way of contributing to the public service could be found than in such enterprises as this; first, a private company with a limitation, if they liked,

1879
of dividend, as in the case of the gas companies, a sliding scale to secure prices, and, ultimately, purchase by some public authority, not necessarily the County Council. He believed, himself, that that was a sound view, and he was delighted that they had found so able a convert to it as the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. At the present moment he might congratulate his own side of the House on having secured from the Government an acknowledgment of the principle which they had long opposed. There was one question put to the right hon. Gentleman by the hon. Member for Westminster, to which he himself had endeavoured to get an answer from the right hon. Gentleman before he began his peroration, and to which, he thought, the House was entitled to an answer, because it might have a material effect on this case. The Instruction which the right hon. Gentleman was to move was a matter of business not a matter of rhetoric. It was to include in the Bill a provision conferring purchasing powers on the London County Council. His hon. friend had spoken against that Instruction on behalf of the City of Westminster because Westminster had a special interest in the existing supply which was safeguarded by Clause 90 in the Bill. The question which his hon friend put to the right hon. Gentleman was, did he mean by his Instruction to put aside Clause 90 or did he not? Did he mean that in any case in 1931 the London County Council should become the purchasing authority, and did he intend to sweep aside the provision which the promoters of the Bill and the House of Lords had inserted in favour of the City of Westminster? At present Westminster had the power in 1930 to buy out two large electric lighting companies within its area, and also power to buy the generating station at Marylebone so as to give the City of Westminster the ability to have an entirely self-contained electric supply. In his judgment this raised a very important point. He himself thought it would be entirely wrong that in 1931 the London County Council should be the purchasing authority when it was unnecessary that it should be so. The City of Westminster was a very large and rich area, with a
1880
very able corporation, quite capable of managing its own affairs, and it had a fully equipped electric supply plant. Surely then, it ought not to be invaded by the County Council. That was not in the interest of the ratepayers of the City of Westminister nor in the interests of the ratepayers of London.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid that the Instruction made it mandatory on the Committee to arrange for the transference to the County Council of all the powers which exist or which the Bill would confer on the promoters.
MR. LYTTELTONsaid he understood that the Committee upstairs was not to have the right to consider whether the rights that had been conferred on the City of Westminster by two statutes were to be maintained or not. If that was really the decision of the Government then he did not see how the proposal could be accepted for a moment. Unquestionably it raised, in the acutest form, the position he had desired to take, and he would have to reconsider it.
MR. JOHN WARDsaid he wished to make one or two observations, particularly one which had been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman—that there was no particular principle involved in this Bill, and that what they ought to do was to give the Bill a Second Reading and send it to Committee upstairs and then pass judgement on the Committee's Report. That advice would absolutely stultify the position of many hon. Members when the Bill came down to the House from the Committee upstairs. He remembered that when the Second Reading of a suburban Water Bill was before the House they were told that it was only necessary to send it upstairs when the Committee would make every inquiry—
MR. CHAPLINrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided:—Ayes, 156; Noes, 70. (Division List No. 237.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Pease, J. A (Saffron Walden

Acland, Francis Dyke

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Centra

Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Glendinning, R. G.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro

Balcarres, Lord

Gretton, John

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hamilton, Marquess of

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Banner, John J. Harmood-

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Roe, Sir Thomas

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Baring, Capt. Hn. G(Winchester

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Beauchamp, E.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Houston, Robert Paterson

Sears, J. E.

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Seaverns, J. H.

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

Hyde, Clarendon

Seely, Colonel

Berridge, T. H. D.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Bright, J. A.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Brodie, H. C.

Jones, William (Carnavonshire

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Brooke, Stopford

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Kekewich, Sir George

Spicer, Sir Albert

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Laidlaw, Robert

Stanger, H. Y.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Lambert, George

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Lewis, John Herbert

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staft'sh.

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Strachey, Sir Edward

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lupton, Arnold

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lyell, Charles Henry

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Tomkinson, James

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

McCallum, John M.

Valentia, Viscount

Clough, William

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Verney, F. W.

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

McLaren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Waring, Walter

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Waterlow, D. S.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Marnham, F. J.

Watt, Henry, A.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Masterman, C. F. G.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Craik, Sir Henry

Micklem, Nathaniel

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Middlebrook, William

Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Williamson, A.

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

Mond, A.

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

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

Montague, Hon. E. S.

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

Duckworth, James

Mooney, J. J.

Winterton, Earl

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Wodehouse, Lord

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Morrell, Philip

Wood, T. McKinnon

Elibank, Master of

Morse, L. L.

Younger, George

Essex, R. W.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Norman, Sir Henry

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Claude Hay and Mr. Burdett-Coutts.

Everett, R. Lacey

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Fell, Arthur

Nuttall, Harry

Ferens, T. R.

Paulton, James Mellor

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Cleland, J. R.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Barnes, G. N.

Clynes, J. R.

Forster, Henry William

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

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

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Bowerman, C. W.

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Harcourt,Robert V. (Montrose)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Cooper, G. J.

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

Byles, William Pollard

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

Halsam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Cave, George

Crooks, William

Hemmerde, Edward George

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

1882

1883

Higham, John Sharp

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Summerbell, T.

Hodge, John

Nicholls, George

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Hudson, Walter

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Idris, T. H. W.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Jackson, R. S.

O'Malley, William

Wadsworth, J.

Jenkins, J.

Radford, G. H.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Jowett, F. W.

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

Walters, John Tudor

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wardle, George J.

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Roberston, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Wiles, Thomas

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Wilkie, Alexander

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Macdonald, J. R (Leicester)

Rowlands, J.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

MacNiell, John Gordon Swift

Seddon, J.

Macpherson, J. T.

Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Timothy Davies and Mr. Pickersgill.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Snowden, P,

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Question put accordingly, "That the wood 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 138; Noes, 90. (Division List No. 238.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Harvey, A. G. C.(Rochdale)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Acland, Francis Dyke

Haworth, Arthur A.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F

Hemmerde, Edward George

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Roberts, Charles H.(Lincoln)

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Holland, Sir William Henry

Roberts, Sir John H (Denbighs.)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Hyde, Clarendon

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Roe, Sir Thomas

Beauchamp, E.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Bellairs, Carlyon

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Sears, J. E.

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

Kekewich, Sir George

Seaverns, J. H.

Berridge, T.H. D.

Laidlaw, Robert

Seely, Colonel

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Lambert, George

Shaw, Charles Edw.(Stafford)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

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

Bright, J. A.

Lewis, John Herbert

Sherwell, Arthur James

Brodie, H.C.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Sinclair, Rt. Hon John

Brooke, Stopford

Lupton, Arnold

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Lyell, Charles Henry

Spicer, Sir Albert

Burke, E. Haviland-

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Stanger, H. Y.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

M'Callum, John M.

Stanley, Hn A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

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

Strachey, Sir Edward

Cheetham, John Frederick

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S

Marnham, F. J.

Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

Clough, William

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Tomkinson, James

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Masterman, C. F. G.

Verney, F. W.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Waring, Walter

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Middlebrook, William

Wason, Rt Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Waterlow, D. S.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Mond, A.

Watt, Henry, A.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Mooney, J. J.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P.

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

Morrell, Philip

Wiles, Thomas

Duckworth, James

Morse, L. L.

Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r

Williamson, A.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Norman, Sir Henry

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

Everett, R. Lacey

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

Ferens, T. R.

Nuttall, Harry

Wodehouse, Lord

Fuller, John Michael F.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Gibb, James (Harrow)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

O'Malley, William

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Paulton, James Mellor

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

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

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Balcarres, Lord

Gretton, John

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hamilton, Marquess of

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

Rowlands, J.

Barnes, G. N.

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Seddon, J.

Bowerman, C. W.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Henderson, Arthur(Durham)

Snowden, P.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Higham, John Sharp

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

Byles, William Pollard

Hodge, John

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Carlile, F. Hildred

Houston, Robert Paterson

Summerbell, T.

Cave, George

Hudson, Walter

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Idris, T. H. W.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Jackson, R. S.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Jenkins, J.

Valentia, Viscount

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Wadsworth, J.

Cleland, J. W.

Jowett, F. W.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Clynes, J. R.

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Walters, John Tudor

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

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

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Cooper, G. J.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Wardle, George J.

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

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Weir, James Galloway

Craik, Sir Henry

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

White, J. D. Dumbartonshre)

Crooks, William

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Wilkie, Alexander

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Macpherson, J. T.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Winterton, Earl

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Younger, George

Essex, R. W.

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Fell, Arthur

Nicholls, George

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Pickersgill, and Mr. Timothy Davies.

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Nield, Herbert

Forster, Henry William

Radford, G. H.

Glendinning, R. G.

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

Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
Postponed Proceeding on Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," resumed.
Question again proposed.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLhoped everything he said would appeal to their instincts of humanity. He wished to express his regret that the Prime Minister did not think it consistent with his duty to allow the day for the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill to pass without the intrusion of other business. He wished to direct attention to the treatment of the women now undergoing sentences of imprisonment for various offences connected with the woman suffrage movement. These women wished, rightly or wrongly, to make certain alterations in the constitution for which the majority of the House had already voted. They might have acted
1886
illegally, but they should be located as political offenders and not as ordinary criminals. They were suffering indignities that he had no notion of until he saw a letter from an old Member of the House describing the treatment meted out to his daughter. He had received a letter from one of these ladies in which there was a pathos and a dignity which must appeal to their hearts, because, whether they liked speeches in Palace Yard or not, they certainly did not like cowardly and vindictive treatment of women who were as honourable as any in the land. This lady, whom he did not know, said they did not complain of their treatment, for to them the supreme wrong was that in the twentieth century it should be necessary for women to suffer as they were doing for citizen rights. The Home Secretary's replies to Questions were not accurate. The clothing was very badly washed, especially the stockings, and one was in constant fear of infection. The outer clothes were not washed and, as there was no lining in the bodice, the serge, which might have been already worn by dozens of prisoners, was in actual contact with the naked skin. It was quite untrue that new

1887
shoes were given. When this lady went to prison she spent quite a long time hunting through a basket full of old shoes, most unpleasant to touch and smell, for a pair likely to fit her and finally had to take odd ones, one being without a heel. It was not the case that all the prisoners were in good health, one being in the isolation ward, suffering from measles, probably contracted in prison. They had all been stripped in the presence of warders and searched as if they were convicted thieves. That was the worst they had to endure. After that hardly anything else mattered. That was a very pathetic and shocking letter. Did a lady of high culture, ability and good position, no matter what she had done, deserve that punishment, or did they like to see women punished in that way whom they would receive in their drawing-rooms and who were guilty of no moral offence? No other torture was comparable to this. These women were kept from all knowledge of their friends. They were deprived of their boots and only allowed to read after five o'clock in the evening. For highly cultured, sensible women this was almost sufficient to drive them into a lunatic asylum. Without saying whether he approved of their action or not he had no hesitation in saying that under a Christian Government such treatment in dealing with women was outrageous. These women were only trying to get the ordinary rights of citizenship. One lady who had written to him said that the shoes supplied to them were so wretched that the nails used to rise up in them and pierce the soles of her feet, and walking about became really torture. The conditions were rendered worse by the orders to which they were subjected. For these women such treatment was absolutely wrong, because after all their object was only to reform society and make the body politic better than it was. Why should they be degraded in this way? If would be enough for his purpose if hon. Members would take to heart what he said, and he would not delay the House. It was sufficient for him to state that for the mere chance of speaking these few words he had stayed in London two days longer instead of going over to Ireland, because he could not have enjoyed his holidays if he had not raised his voice to condemn such
1888
action as he had complained of action not worthy of this country. There was another question in regard to which he had given the Home Secretary plenty of notice—he referred to flogging as a punishment in prisons. A number of sentences of flogging had recently been given by Judges in regard to which the right hon. Gentleman had not in the exercise of his duty thought it necessary to exercise the prerogative of the Crown. They did not know half the horrors in regard to what went on under this system of flogging. It was very painful to him to read such cases. He had taken special means to find out what the ordinary flogging in a prison consisted of, and he could assure the House that it was a very shocking affair. A triangle was fixed up, the prisoner's legs and feet were tightly bound to the arms of the triangle and there was attached a pulley and cords and two leather handcuffs, and the body was drawn up. The cat-o'-nine tails was a whip with a very long handle and nine cords, one-sixteenth of an inch thick, and at the end they were not waxed but tied together by hard, strong strings. Flogging with the cat-o'-nine tails had been utterly abolished in Scotland, it was not known in Ireland, where no Judge would inflict such punishment. In England it was only permitted in two classes of offence, namely, for attacks on the Sovereign and for offence under the Garrotting Act—robbery with violence. It was well known that two-thirds of the Judges of England would never inflict the penalty of the lash under any circumstances, and they had often protested against it. Flogging had been denounced in the strongest possible language in that House. It had been denounced by an ex-Home Secretary, Sir Matthew White Ridley, who, in every case of a prisoner sentenced to the penalty of the lash never allowed it to be carried into operation without carefully weighing the evidence of the case, and he generally reversed the decision. Sir Matthew White Ridley once said he would never forgive himself if he allowed the sentence of the lash to be inflicted upon a man where there was the slightest possibility of his being innocent, because the punishment was inhuman, and made the person who was

1889
punished never have the spirit of a man again. The present Prime Minister got up in the House of Commons on 28th March, 1900, and said that in all cases would wish the lash never to be inflicted, because it was a punishment in which the moral degradation of the man after its infliction was irremediable. That was on a Bill which authorised flogging, and the House of Commons rejected it by 100, expressing at the same time its strong disapproval of the penalty of the lash. At Cardiff assizes last month fourteen prisoners were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and various inflictions of the lash. When he heard of those sentences he immediaately sent a special messenger to the Home Secretary in order if possible to have the punishment stayed. He impressed upon the right hon. Gentleman that in none of these cases should the lash be inflicted until he had himself looked into the circumstances. In his judgment flogging was more degrading than death. He would rather be put to death than be flogged. If the Court of Criminal Appeal had been in operation when these fourteen men were sentenced it was certain that the convictions would have been quashed because there was no legal evidence of violence. They were sentenced in March, in the first week of April they were flogged, and the appeal court was not constituted until the 18th April. There was, therefore, no remedy except through the intervention of the Home Secretary, who was the depository of the prerogative of mercy exercised by the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he would not interfere in such cases now that there was a court to which a prisoner could appeal. In reference to that matter the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken. The appeal would be on a mere matter of law, and the discretion of the Judge would be rarely, if ever, interfered with in cases of flogging. The Home Secretary had a higher privilege than even a Judge or the Court of Appeal. He was able to pass over mere technicalities, and, after taking into consideration all circumstances, advise the exercise of the Royal prerogative. He regretted that since the right hon. Gentleman's régime began there had been a considerable increase
1890
in the infliction of flogging for offences in jail.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): No.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid it appeared from the last Report that there were seventy of these sentences, and that only three were remitted. He hoped his information was wrong.
MR. GLADSTONE: There were twenty-eight.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that in all there had been 120 cases in three years. That was a very terrible state of things. He had received a letter from a prison governor stating that in many cases where the punishment of flogging was inflicted the warders were the aggressors by striking the first blow. The prisoners who were sentenced to be flogged for offences against prison discipline suffered the most terrible suspense during the ten or twelve days that elapsed between the passing of the sentence and the carrying of it out. The prison governor stated in his letter that he knew of a case in which a prisoner from that cause went stark mad. He hoped that these facts would be considered by the Home Secretary and that he would make an effort either to abandon as far as possible this form of punishment, or to abolish it.
EARL WINTERTONsaid he desired to call attention to what he regarded as a most serious leakage of information which had recently taken place in the Navy. He referred to communications which had recently appeared in a leading newspaper. He intended merely to refer to the message and to the circumstances which enabled it to be made public. He had no intention to refer to the unhappy state of affairs in the Navy, because the House was doing, and had done, well to leave that matter entirely alone, as it had left alone a similarly unhappy state of affairs in the Navy in March last and the correspondence which appeared in the Press upon it. He would make no

1891
reference to the remarkable feature of that correspondence, which constituted a combined attack in the whole Press on Lord Charles Beresford. The only instance to which he would refer was the statement which appeared in a leading newspaper, giving an account of an incident that took place in the Fleet, upon which a Question was answered by the First Lord of the Admiralty earlier in the day. That statement, according to rumour, had been hawked round Fleet Street before it finally found a home in Printing House Square, a statement so improbable on the face of it that one would have thought that any newspaper would have hesitated before printing it. But the point which he wished to emphasise was not so much how the statement got into the newspaper, but how it leaked out of the Navy. As the House was aware, during the recent naval manœuvres no civilians were permitted on board any ship in the Fleet, and, therefore, the information must have been got from someone serving in the Navy. Some officer or man in the service might have made some communication to a friend who had sent it on to the newspaper, so that it might not have come to the newspaper at first hand. At any rate, it must have come from some ship at sea. It was exceedingly difficult to trace the authorship of such a statement. He did not propose to go into the question fully, but it was a most serious state of affairs when a statement of this nature, obviously proceeding from a member of the Navy, appeared in the public Press. The statement which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty said was without foundation, was that Lord Charles Beresford had jeopardised the safety of two of His Majesty's ships. His sole desire in bringing the matter forward was to urge on the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of taking drastic steps to put a stop to this constant leakage of information on naval matters which found its way into the Press. The time had come to root out the mutual recriminations which appeared. The right hon. Gentleman should endeavour to discover the person or persons who gave to the Press this entirely ruinous, inaccurate, and cruel
1892
statement, and do away with Press agents in the Navy. The right hon. Gentleman would agree with him as to the gravity of the position when there could be a single man in the Fleet who would make such a communication to the Press reflecting very grossly on his Admiral. He hoped the First Lord would alleviate the anxiety which was felt on this matter and give an assurance that every effort would be made to discover who had caused the Memorandum to be published, and that he would do something to prevent such a breach of the Admiralty regulations in future.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,)said that, of course, he had no knowledge as to how the communication was made from the Fleet to the Press, and it was impossible to ascertain that, even if he were to try. No doubt the actual communication that was originally made to the Press was in every respect a true one. He assumed that the original communication was sent by some person in the Fleet to someone on shore.
MR. CLAUDE HAY: By wire?
MR. MCKENNA: No; had it been sent by wire I must have known of it.
MR. CLAUDK HAY: By wireless telegraphy?
MR. MCKENNAsaid it could not have been sent by wireless telegraphy without its being known to the Admiralty. He assumed it was made by a private letter, and the recipient communicated the information to the Press, and all the comments which the noble Lord rightly described as untrue were made not by the original communicator, but by writers for the Press. For those comments it would be most unfair to suggest that any officer or other person in the Navy was in the least responsible. The whole gravamen of the charge did not lie in the signal, but in the comments made upon it. There was no danger in the manœuvre itself. He trusted that the whole incident, which

1893
had been a most unhappy one, might be allowed to drop.
MR. CLYNESsaid he was anxious to make an appeal to the Home Secretary further to consider the case of the three men who were undergoing sentence of imprisonment on a charge of conspiracy, with a view to some modification of their sentence. The case he was referring to was that of three men who were now undergoing twelve months imprisonment, and he wished the House to understand that the issues were larger than appeared at first sight. Those issues included the higher questions of reasonable treatment for men who were driven into taking very injudicious steps in connection with the business in which they were engaged. The Home Secretary had stated in reply to Questions which he had put during the course of the session that the men who were sentenced to this term of imprisonment deliberately committed an act of conspiracy. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman said, they were condemned not for something rash and uncontemplated, but for a very serious offence against law and property. The view he (Mr. Clynes) had come to alter going fully into the matter was that the men were smarting under a sense of great wrong inflicted upon them, and were driven by the conditions of the moment into what were acts of folly rather than conditions of crime. There had been in Manchester an agitation arising out of very acute conditions of unemployment in that city. These men held meetings, which were to a great extent unconnected with the responsible and representative labour movement of that centre. They frequently met in one of the outer squares of the city, but they were driven on one occasion by the weather to another place. The situation on that particular occasion was stated in the course of the trial in the following terms by Superintendent Lauder, who said that on Sunday, 15th March, he attended a meeting of the unemployed in Stevenson Square. He reached the Square at 3.30, when the meeting had opened. When it had been some time in progress snowfell, and the men adjourned to another place. On being told that they could not remain there they re-
1894
turned to the square and speech-making was resumed. Batty and Brown (two of the three men in prison) arrived about five o'clock. Up to that time the meeting had been orderly. When they came Smith (the third man in prison) said: "Come on, we want a revolution." He (Mr. Clynes) need not read further from the statement of Superintendent Lauder. The men were scattered and they made their way to the house of Smith. There they indulged in a great deal of talk about what they would do, some even going to the extreme of rashly speaking of blowing up the Town Hall, and visiting the House of Commons for a similar purpose. The outcome of this kind of talk was that in the course of a day or two some of the men smashed some windows in Market Street, the talk being of committing a dramatic act in order to call attention to the grievances under which so many persons were smarting. The three men were afterwards brought into Court, were condemned on a charge of conspiracy, and were now undergoing a sentence of twelve months in prison. He suggested to the Home Secretary that these men were incited by a state of despair, and by the conditions under which they were harassed to commit these acts, which he, of course, did not seek to defend. The point he wished to make was that the men had been unduly punished, and that the sentence was harsh. What he desired was that the right hon. Gentleman, who had shown in the course of his frequent association with questions of punishment and crime a strong sense of humanity, should use the authority which his great office gave him, to secure that in this instance the punishment should be made a little more to fit the crime. The language of the men was, of course, inflammatory and boastful, but the example they set was in no way followed. It should be made clear that the representatives of organised labour in the city had in no sense endeavoured to excuse the acts which were committed and which were isolated instances of folly on the part of a few men, who had been severely punished for their fault. The evidence on which the men were condemned was the unsupported evidence of one man, who was himself a party to the business. This man, who was

1895
at Smith's house along with the rest of the men, was of a discreditable character, and had been twenty-four times in gaol. As a matter of fact, since the trial he had been in gaol once, if not twice, so that very little real dependence or trust could be placed on anything he had to say about other people. The men who were condemned were unable to take advantage of the Criminal Appeal Act, on account of the hurried nature of the police proceedings and other limitations which existed in the case of poor men of this kind who were swiftly brought into Court, speedily tried, and disposed of with the least possible delay, without being able to use the aids and advantages which money often conferred in Courts of law. An application was made in Court for an appeal in this case on a point of law resting on the uncorroborated evidence given by the discredited witness to whom he had referred. No appeal was allowed, and he had been driven to make the present appeal in the House in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would use the power with which his office invested him to mitigate the severity of the sentence passed on these men. It might be mentioned that the spy reported certain things to the police with regard to the intended commission of various acts, and so little importance did the police, attach to them that no preparations were made to protect persons or property from the offences which it was alleged had been contemplated. Moreover, since these men were condemned, criminal records and police court proceedings showed that dozens of more serious cases of offences against life and property had occurred in which the guilty parties had been much less severely punished than the men whose cause he was now pleading. He could cite cases in which serious crimes had been committed and yet the offenders had been punished with no greater sentence than three or six months imprisonment. He suggested that in this case the purpose of the law had been served, and that the feeling prevailing in Manchester—the sympathy surrounding these unfortunate men—ought to have some weight with the right hon. Gentleman. He understood that memorials had been signed and
1896
that there was a considerable volume of opinion in favour of presenting a powerfully signed requisition in the hope that the Home Secretary might be induced to reconsider his decision. He hoped it would not be supposed that he was condemning the right hon. Gentleman for what he had done so far, because he was putting the case in no contentious spirit, but rather in a spirit of hope that as these men had served a period of five months imprisonment the right hon. Gentleman would exercise his power to secure that the term of their incarceration should be shortened.
MR. WEIRdesired to call attention to two matters, one of which was the case of the crofters of the Island of Vatersay. He was glad that arrangements had been arrived at under which these men had been released from gaol, but he thought that if matters had been properly managed and arrangements had been arrived at with the proprietor when negotiations were commenced there would have been no necessity for these men to have broken the law. He was most anxious that a similar state of things should not come to pass in the Island of Lewis. The Vatersay crofters were small in number compared with the landless men in the Island of Lewis, where there were 7,500 landless people, or 25 per cent. of the total population. He had brought the matter before the Secretary for Scotland time after time, and the reply he invariably received was that it was being considered. The Government could never get further forward than the consideration stage. The difficulty in Vatersay was that, the farm wanted by the cottars was held under a lease, but in the Island of Lewis there were 20,000 acres of land, none of which was under lease. What he suggested to the Secretary for Scotland was that he should take energetic and active measures to secure the whole or part of these lands for the people before leases were granted by the proprietor. His fear for a long time past had been that the men would break the law, though he had always advised them to agitate in a constitutional manner, and so far they had acted in accordance

1897
with that advice. But the Secretary for Scotland should do something to ensure that these 7,500 landless people should not be forced to live under the present unsatisfactory conditions. If negotiations were entered into without delay, he believed there would be little difficulty in obtaining the required quantity of land, but he feared that unless something was done trouble must ensue. These men were coming home from the fishing with very little money, and as they would be in a half-starved condition, during the winter it was quite likely that they might be tempted to break the law. No legislation, was required to provide for a case of this kind, because the Congested Districts Board had full powers to negotiate with the proprietor and to secure possession of vacant farms. In 1899 he moved an Amendment, to the Queen's Speech asking for legislation for the crofters, cottars and fishermen of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, in support of which 142 Members voted, including the late Prime Minister and several right hon. Gentlemen who now sat on the Treasury Bench. The Government majority was only five. He therefore felt fully justified in urging the Government to take some action on these lines. If the Government did not intend to give effect to their pledges let them be honest and say so. What he asked was that the Secretary for Scotland should not rest on his oars but should do something for these people. He (Mr. Weir) had done his best to see that the law was obeyed. Matters would not have come to the present pass if the Scottish Secretary had been more active.
MR GLADSTONEsaid he quite agreed that the hon. Member for N. E. Manchester had stated his case with great moderation. He must, however, point out that he did not accept his version of the case, though he was not able at that hour to discuss the matter. He had, as the hon. Member knew, very carefully examined it. The main allegation
1898
against the men was, as the hon. Member had stated, one of conspiracy. The Court held that there was evidence of a previous agreement to do damage. By pre-concerted action these men began breaking windows, causing damage to the extent of £100. The learned Recorder was most careful to warn the jury that they must not attach weight to the particular witness to whom the hon. Member referred unless his evidence was corroborated. The Court held that that evidence was corroborated and a conviction followed. The hon. Member said these men were smarting under a sense of wrong. Did he really think that the men (Brown and another) were acting under any such sense? He was not going to go into the record of these men further than to say that so far as he could ascertain neither of them appeared to have wished to get work, and in one case when work was got the man was found not capable of taking it. With regard to the third man, he (the Home Secretary) agreed he was a man of it very different order. He was in good employment at the time. He (the Home Secretary) was aware that he associated himself with the unemployed movement, but he did not at all question his bona fides or his belief in the rightness of his action. But still he was one of those men who did in fact meet together and who were proved by the Court to be guilty of serious conspiracy. It was really very difficult to draw a distinction between his case and that of the other men. He was afraid he could not at the present time see his way to interfere, but if, by petition or otherwise, any new information or argument was brought to his notice he would of course, consider it. His hon. friend the Member for Donegal had raised rather large questions that evening and he would not expect him (the Home Secretary) to go into the whole question of flogging which he had raised. Let him say this one word. His hon. friend quoted a letter which he said was from

1899
a prison governor in which the governor said, presumably speaking from his own knowledge—if he did not speak from his own knowledge his evidence was of no value—that in many of these cases of prison flogging the first blow was struck by the warders. If that was true how gravely it must reflect upon the prison governor. He need scarcely point out to his hon. friend that the prison governor was responsible. He was head of the prison. He reported the cases of flogging to the Home Secretary. If it was within his knowledge that provocation was given by the warder, and if, knowing that, he held his tongue and allowed the man to be flogged, then all he (the Home Secretary) could say was that he deserved to be dismissed from his post at once. He left his hon. friend to clear up that position. On the general question his hon. friend knew perfectly well there were two aspects of the matter, and the question was raised in two forms. The first was whether flogging as a punishment was desirable in the public interest. That was a very large and very interesting question. If there was to be any change in the present system he would desire a change in the direction of mitigation, but he was bound to say he did not take the view of his hon. friend. What was the last case which came before him? A young ruffian who had taken a large handful of mud and stuffed it into the eyes and mouth of a young girl and then robbed her. Well, that man was flogged, and he (the Home Secretary) would waste no sympathy upon him, though he did sympathise with his victim. There was the general question. He differentiated his views from those held by his hon. friend, who held strong views on that matter. He did not take up such a strong position. His duty was to act under the law, and when these cases came before him by way of appeal he was bound to look into them, and he did look into them. He sanctioned only two days ago the remission of a second sentence of flogging
1900
which had been imposed upon a, prisoner. He was sure his hon. friend would not expect him to go further into the matter. One of two words on the hon. Gentleman's remarks as to the treatment of the prisoners in Holloway. He did not quite gather from his hon. friend whether he said what he did by way of protest against the system generally or whether he was arguing for special privileges to the particular persons to whom he was alluding.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that what he wanted was that the suffragists should be treated as political prisoners as Dr. Jameson was treated.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid that the treatment of Dr. Jameson came before the Act of 1898. That was a constitutional question upon which he and his hon. friend must agree to differ. His hon. friend made several declarations about the treatment of the ladies in prison. He must tell him he did not think they were accurate. He would not refer, of course, by name to the informant of the hon. Member, except to say that he observed the period spoken of was not the last period.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: It was last February.
MR. GLADSTONE,proceeding, said that in regard to second division prisoners he was not satisfied in every respect with the present regulations, and he had already taken some action with regard to that. He was referring now to the general prison regulations. That matter was under his consideration, and would be for some time. But in regard to these particular ladies he must tell the House that their treatment was not really what his hon. friend in his genuine honest enthusiasm would lead the House to suppose. Their treatment was in fact different from that of prisoners in the third division. They were kept

1901
apart, entirely from association with prisoners in the third division. Their clothes were now—whatever may have happened in the past—scrupulously clean, and he believed that in the case of most of these ladies they had actually new clothes and new shoes. His hon. friend had quoted the case of one prisoner who developed measles. That was true. There was a case of measles being developed by one of the prisoners, but there was no reason to suppose she contracted the ailment in prison. His hon. friend must remember that these ladies got two books a week in addition to the instruction books, besides which the chaplain could give them other books. They were associated together in work, and during that association they had an easier chair than was usually supplied. Their life was not of quite so ascetic a character as his hon. friend had sought to make out. They exercised twice a day, and they had writing materials. It must not be forgotten that after all the treatment was treatment in prison, and if prison discipline was to be worth anything it must be kept. He thought that, having regard to all the considerations it could not be said that the treatment of the women suffragists was cruel or inhuman. He had every reason to believe, though he had not had the Report, that almost without exception in the case of those particular ladies who had been sent to prison their health had in fact improved, and he had taken every care to see that if for obvious reasons they could not stand imprisonment so well as the more usual occupants of the prisons, they should be looked after, not to the disadvantage of other prisoners, but with very special care and attention by the medical officers. He thought that he had said enough to make it clear that his hon. friend had coloured the matter rather highly.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,)said that if
1902
the House would allow him at that late hour he would like to say one word on the criticism of his hon. friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty. Everybody was aware of the earnestness with which the hon. Member pleaded the cause of his constituents whenever there was a fitting opportunity in that House, and nobody would deny to him the credit which was his due on that account. But the hon. Member did not go properly into the facts and did not credit other people with the sympathy which he himself felt for the conditions under which those for whom he spoke lived. He wished to take first the question of the Vatersay squatters. The controversy which had just been concluded was merely the list incident in a long chain of events, and if his hon. friend had examined the whole history of the proceedings which had taken place in that parish and in that island for the last two or three generations he could not possibly get up in that House and hold the present Government responsible for what had recently occurred. He thought, with all respect, that his hon. friend had misunderstood the nature of the case. As regarded the Island of Lewis the conditions were difficult and serious in some respects, but they were not created yesterday. They were the sequel and result of a combination of circumstances and influences which had been going on in that island for many years, and for which no Government could be held singly and solely responsible. As a matter of fact, judged by many standards, the Island of Lewis, while he admitted there were great difficulties, had advanced and prospered. The people were better educated, the standard of life had been raised, the earnings of the people were greater, and there was more money going into the island than ever before. They found that the people made their way from that island earning their living in different parts of Scotland, and they found that they were not behind the people in other parts of

1903
Scotland in winning their way and making a successful business of their career in life. He quite agreed that there was a great deal which might be done. These islands were remote, far front the facilities of transport, travel and civilisation, and the other facilities usual near large centres of population but for all that the people had great grit and they did well when they met people from other parts of Scotland and from other parts of the world. The Government were not insensible to their responsibilities and duties to that part of the United Kingdom, and they were endeavouring to discharge their responsibilities to the best of their ability. He did not think that at that time of night he would be consulting the wishes of the House if he enlarged on the subject, but he could assure the hon. Member that the Government were no less awake than he was to their duties in regard to the parts of Scotland to which he had alluded, or than they were to their duties to other parts of the United Kingdom.

EAST INDIA LOANS [RAILWAY AND IRRIGATION WORKS, AND GENERAL PURPOSES.]
Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to authorise the Secretary of State in Council of India to raise in the United Kingdom, on the security of the Revenues of India, by the creation and issue of capital stock, bonds, debentures, or bills:—(1) A sum not exceeding £20,000,000, for the following purposes: (a) The construction, extension, and equipment of railways in India by State agency or through the agency of companies; (b) the repayment of the principal of any bonds or debentures issued by any such company under the guarantee of the Secretary of State; (c) the discharge of any obligations incurred by the Secretary
1904
of State by reason of the purchase of any railway or the determination of any contract from or with such company; (d) the construction of irrigation works in India. (2) A sum not exceeding £5,000,000 for the general purposes of the Government of India."
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Hobhouse.

EAST INDIA LOANS BILL
"To empower the Secretary of State in Council of India to raise money in the United Kingdom for the construction, extension, and equipment of railways in India, by State agency or through the agency of companies, for the construction of Irrigation Works, and for other purposes," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday 12th October, and to be printed. [Bill 362.]
CRIMINAL APPEAL (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS].
Read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
CORONERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
ENDOWED SCHOOLS (MASTERS) BILL [LORDS].
As amended, considered.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL.
Resolved, "That the Statement of the estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Travers' Foundation for the year 1908–9 be approved."—(Mr. Lambert.)
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 10th July, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at twenty minutes before One o'clock.