Commons Sitting of 18 March 1908

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

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the
  544
  case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order 62 has been complied with, viz.:—Camborne Water Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  Derby Gas Bill.—As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP C).
  Mr. WHITBREAD reported from the Committee on Group C of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at Twelve of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP A).
  Mr. MOONEY reported from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills; That the parties promoting the Glyncorrwg Urban District Council Bill had stated that the evidence of Dr. William Williams, Medical Officer of Health, Cardiff, and Isaac Davies, of Abergwynfi, Schoolmaster, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that their attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Dr. William Williams and Isaac Davies do attend the said Committee To-morrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Ordered, That the said Dr. William Williams and the said Isaac Davies do attend the Committee on Group A of Private Bills To-morrow, at half-past Eleven of the Clock.
  Sligo and Arigna Railway Bill—Report [17th March] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
  Bill to be read a second time.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to:—Amendments to Clyde Navigation (Superannuation) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
PETITIONS.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL AND LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Weston-super-Mare, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against: From Dorchester; Kidderminster; Salisbury; and Wickwar; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: From Biggleswade; and Tulse Hill and West Norwood; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Great Harwood: Lancashire and Cheshire (two); Larkhall; Lower Broughton; Manchester; and Manchester and Sal-ford; to lie upon the Table.
  SWAZILAND.
  Petition of Malungi Nkosi and other Swazi Chiefs, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN BILL.
  Petition from Ayrshire, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CHECKWSIGHING AT LIME AND CEMENT WORKS, ETC., (DEPARTMENTAL COM- MITTEES).
  Copy presented, of Reports to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by the Departmental Committees on Checkweighing in: (1) Cement Works and Chalk Quarries, and (2) Lime Works and Limestone Quarries [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3962 and 3963 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRANSVAAL GOVERNMENT GUARAN- TEED LOAN.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 25th February, 1908, embodying
  546
  the Treasury Guarantee of the Transvaal Treasury Bills issued under Section 1 (3) of the Transvaal Loan (Guarantee) Act, 1907, on 1st February, 1908, to a total amount of £500,000 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Criminal Appeal Rules.—Copy of the Criminal Appeal Rules, 1908 [by Act].
Oral Answers to Questions
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Promotion in the Civil Service.
    MR. FIELD (): To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the present discontent in the subordinate ranks of the Civil Service as to their pay and prospects is due to the attitude of the higher permanent officials; whether he is aware that some of these gentlemen have at all stages of their official career, particularly in the Post Office, opposed the legitimate and temperate claims of subordinate civil servants, many of which, after investigation, have since been granted; and whether, in view of the many service questions still unsettled, he will arrange, in the public interest, that these disputes shall be submitted to the arbitration of a Committee of the House, which will have the power of carrying out its own findings.
    (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The Answer to all three Questions is in the negative.

    Erection of New School at Caddy, Randalstown.
    MR. SLOAN (): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if plans and specifications have been prepared for the erection of a new school at Caddy, Randalstown; and, if so, can he explain the cause for the delay in proceeding with the work of building.
    (Answered by Mr. Birr ell.) The manager's special plans and specification have been approved and a grant has been sanctioned. A lease of the site of the new schoolhouse was sent to the manager

    547
    on 7th instant for execution and, pending the receipt of this document duly executed, the Commissioners of National Education cannot issue the necessary authorisation for proceeding with the building.

    Distribution of Untenanted Land on the Lambert Minors Estates.
    MR. DUFFY (): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a number of tenants on the Lambert Minors property, agricutural, Athenry, have been in the habit of going a distance away to sow conacre potatoes and other crops; whether this year some of them have to travel long distances to try and procure land for the purpose; and whether he will communicate with the Estates Commissioners and press upon them the urgency of distributing the untenanted lands on this property with the least possible delay.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have communicated with the Estates Commissioners, who inform me that they can add nothing to the statement already made, namely, that as soon as the arrangements for re-sale have been completed the sale will be carried through as quickly as possible.

    Australian and New Zealand State Railways.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (): To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will, for the general information of Members, make a statement showing the original cost, the present earnings, and financial position of the Australian and New Zealand State Railways, showing also the amount derived by the States from the railways over and above the interest paid on cost of construction and working.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The information asked for by the hon. Member, so far as it is available, will be included in the Return ordered by the House at the instance of my hon. friend the Member for North Paddington. The Return will be issued in about a fortnight's time.

    Registration of Workmen's Clubs.
    MR. CROOKS (): To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, how many workmen's clubs are registered under the provisions of the Friendly Societies Act and the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, respectively; whether such registration is voluntary and involves the making of the rules and balance sheets of such clubs accessible to the public; and whether such balance sheets indicate an expenditure of less than 9d. per week in such clubs upon intoxicating drink.
    (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am informed that the number of working men's clubs registered under the Friendly Societies Act is 1,071. Working men's clubs are not registered as such under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, but there are a number of societies incorporated under those Acts whose object is to carry on the business of club proprietors. It is probable that a good many carry on the business of working men's clubs, some of them, perhaps, more than one club. Every society, both under the Friendly Societies Act and the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, is bound by statute to supply a copy of its rules to every person on demand on payment of not exceeding 1s., also to supply gratuitously a copy of its last annual balance sheet to every member or person interested in the funds, but not to the public. There are no statistics available from which I can answer the last part of the Question.

    English Licence Duties on Irish Motors.
    MR. SLOAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, if he can explain why an Irish motorist is obliged to pay licence duty to the Board of Inland Revenue on a motor car which may only be passing through Great Britain, notwithstanding the fact that he is registered in Ireland as the owner of such motor; can he say why an Irish motorist, keeping a motor car in Great Britain, is obliged to pay licence duty for a whole yean, and in addition thereto is liable to a fine for failing to take out a licence, although he may have only used the car there for one day; and if he will take steps to remedy this alleged grievance.

    549
    (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) There is no exemption from licence duty in favour of motor cars used in Great Britain by persons resident elsewhere, and I see no reason to alter the law.
    MR. SLOAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the licence duty demanded from a motorist registered in Ireland is remitted by the Board of Inland Revenue to the district in which the car has been used for the upkeep of the roads in such, district.
    (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The duty in question goes to the local authorities of the area in which the licence is taken out.

    Pacific Cable—Increase of Grants in-Aid.
    MR. HAROLD COX (): To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can give any further explanation than that contained in the Estimates of the fact that the estimated grant-in-aid to the Pacific Cable for the year 1908–9 shows a considerable increase over the estimated grant for 1907–8.
    (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) In estimating the amount of the grant-in-aid required for any year, account is taken of the probable balance in the hands of the Board at the beginning of the year available for expenditure. Last year it was estimated that the balance available on 1st April, 1907, would be £20,355, and the grant-in-aid was reduced by that amount. The balance available on 1st April, 1908, is now estimated at £6,976, and this difference accounts for the increase in the grant-in-aid. The estimated excess of expenditure over traffic receipts is practically the same for the two years.

    Herring Fisheries (Scotland) Act.
    MR. DUNDAS WHITE (): To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will consider the desirability of extending Section 8 of the Herring Fishing (Scotland) Act, 1889, so as to prohibit, not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom the landing and selling of fish caught in contravention of that Act.
    (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The Government have not lost sight of this
    550
    suggestion; but I am unable at this moment to give any undertaking as to additional legislation this session.

    Foreign Trawlers in the Moray Firth.
    MR. R. L. HARMSWORTH (): To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state the number of instances, month by month, in which foreign trawlers have been reported as fishing within the Moray Firth during the twelve months ended February last
    (Answered by Mr Sinclair) The numbers asked for are as follows:—1907: March, 45; April, 8; May, 3; June, 13; July, 6; August, 4; September, 1; October, 5; November, 22; December, 26. 1908: January, 15; February, 7; in all 155.

    School Grants.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (): To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he will circulate a Memorandum showing the total amount of grant which would have been payable to each local educational authority, and the amount which this sum would have represented per child in average attendance at the schools of the said authority, for the year 1906–7, if the scheme of grants described in Cd. Paper 3945 had then been in force, and if no schools had contracted out.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I am having a Memorandum prepared showing, as far as possible, the amount which each local education authority would have received in the financial year ending on 31st March, 1908, if the new scheme of grants had been in operation. The results must, however, be to some extent based on estimates and not on actual figures, inasmuch as a considerable portion of the audited financial statements of local education authorities for the year 1906–7, upon which the calculation of the grant for loan charges is based, have not yet been received or examined. It may also be necessary for the same reason to ignore the limitation of the grant to 75 per cent. of the local authority's expenditure, the financial effect of which will not in any case

    551
    be great and will be still less in 1909–10, the earliest year in which the new system could become operative.

    School Grants—Children under Five Years of Age.
    MR. HAROLD COX: To ask the President of the Board of Education what would be, approximately, the saving on the Vote for Elementary Education in the forthcoming year if no grant were paid on account of children under four years of age, and what would be the saving if no grant were paid on account of children under five years of age.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The average attendance of children under five years during the statistical year ending 31st July, 1907, was 367,206. The numbers have been decreasing, and it may be assumed that the average attendance of such children on which grant will become payable in 1908–9 will be about 300,000. If this average attendance were disallowed for the purpose of all grants, the saving on the Vote would be about £577,000. No

    Total Naval Expenditure and Expenditure on New Construction and Armament of France, Germany, and Russia for the years 1906 and 1907.

    Country.

    Year.

    Total Expenditure.

    Expenditure on New Construction and Armament.

    £

    £

    France (financial year, 1st January to 31st December)

    1906

    13,003,238

    5,702,267

    1907

    12,486,793

    5,132,494

    Germany (financial year, 1st April to 31st March)

    1906

    12,005,871

    5,342,466

    1907

    13,623,924 (estimated)

    6,285,225

    Russia (financial year, 1st January to 31st December (o. S.)

    1906

    12,490,444

    4,576,553

    1907

    8,871,327 (voted)

    2,870,028 (voted)

    Total

    72,481,597

    29,909,033

    NOTE.—The figures for Russia do not include £1,800,000 subscribed by voluntary contributions and expended during the years 1904, 1905, 1906, and 1907.
    separate figures are available for children under four years of age.

    The Duke of York's School.
    MR. HART-DAVIES (): To ask the First Commissioner of Works under what statutory authority the site and buildings of the Duke of York's Royal Military School at Chelsea are vested in the charge of the Commissioner of Works.
    (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) Under The Royal Military Asylum, Chelsea (Transfer) Act, 1884 (47 and 48 Vict., cap. 32).

    British and Foreign Naval Expenditure on New Construction.
    MR. NIELD (): To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what was the amount of money devoted to new construction for the years 1906 and 1907, together with the total naval expenditure, by France, Germany, and Russia, respectively, during the corresponding period and for the like purpose.
    (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.)

    Hollesley Bay Labour Colony Accounts.
    SIB F. CHANNING (): To ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he will state, from the accounts of the Hollesley Bay labour colony as examined by the Local Government Board, how he arrives at the figures of £100,000 as representing the cost of the settlement in less than four years, and of £22,000 a year as the net loss per annum of the settlement; and what were the receipts set off against the total gross cost of £100,000.
    (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) My hon. friend no doubt refers to my speech in the House on Friday last. The sum of £100,000 mentioned by me as the gross cost of the estate was a round figure; the exact sum is £97,287. This is made up of £43,475, representing the total cost of purchase, and £53,812, representing the gross cost of maintenance from the date of the transfer of the farm colony to the Central Body, 11th December, 1905, to the 28th ultimo, a period of about two and a quarter years. As regards the sum of £22,000, I see from the manuscript note of my speech that this should be £21,000. This also was a round figure. The exact figure supplied to me by the Central Unemployed Body is £20,954, and relates to the year ended 31st March, 1907. The receipts to be

    Period.

    Average gross cost of maintenance per head per week.

    Deduct average receipts from sales &c., per head per week.

    Net cost of maintenance per head per week.

    s.

    s.

    s.

    1st April, 1906, to 31st March, 1907

    37·34

    7·16

    30·18

    1st April, 1907, to 28th February, 1908

    44·12

    11·97

    32·15

    The payments made by the Central (Unemployed) Body for London in aid of the maintenance of the wives and children of the men sent to the colony are included in the above statement, but the annual charge in respect of the loan raised to defray the costs of the purchase of the colony is not included. I have no
    set oft against the total gross cost of £97,287 incurred between 11th December 1905 and 28th February last amount to £12,078 7s. 11d.
    SIR F. CHANNING: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, what has been the average cost per man per week, and what is now the average cost per man per week, at Hollesley Bay and at Laindon, as shown in the accounts as examined by the Local Government Board; whether this cost includes the maintenance of the wives and children of the men in those labour colonies; what is the average number of wives and children so included and the average number of men in the colonies with wives and children; and what is the corresponding cost per man with wife and similar proportion of children in the metropolitan workhouses and in the workhouses of provincial towns and in rural counties.
    (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) As regards the farm colony at Hollesley Bay, the following statement gives the particulars desired of the average cost of maintenance of each man sent to the colony during the financial year ended on 31st March, 1907, and similar particulars relating to the period between 1st April, 1907 and 28th February, 1908.
    information as to the number of women and children dependent on the men sent to the colony during the period covered by the statement. As regards the branch workhouse at Laindon I recently gave the cost per inmate as 24s. per week. This rate was based on the latest figures in my possession of one year's

    555
    expenditure at that institution, after giving credit for the value of the produce sold or consumed, and on an average number of inmates taken at 143. It includes a figure for the cost of the relief given separately by the guardians to the wives and children. I am not able to give the precise information asked for as regards the number of wives and children as distinguished from the cost of their relief, but I am informed that the largest number of inmates on any day between 25th February and 7th March, 1908, was ninety-eight, that with three exceptions all the men had dependents, and that the average number of children in each case was between three and four. It is not possible to give corresponding figures of cost with respect to the cases referred to in the last part of the Question; but I may draw the attention of my hon. friend to the statistics given at page 148 of the last Annual Report of the Local Government Board relative to the cost of the relief of indoor and outdoor paupers in London and the provinces.

    Imports of Plain Potato Spirit.
    MR. HADDOCK (): To ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he can state the number of proof gallons of plain potato spirit imported during the year 1907, and the names of the countries from which it came.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. Plain potato spirit is included on importation under the general heading of "Unenumerated spirits," and no separate records exist. I regret, therefore, that I am unable to give the information desired.

    Sale of the Duke of York's School.
    MR. HART-DAVIES: To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether the consent of Parliament has been given to the sale of the site of the Duke of York's Military School and the transfer of the school to Dover.
    (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) There is no special statutory sanction for this, and I am advised that such is not necessary.

    Issue of New Short Rifle to the Yeomanry
    MR. BRODIE (): To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he can state the date on which the new short rifle will be ready for issue to the Yeomanry; and whether, in view of the fact that the musketry season is from April to September, he will do his utmost to get the rifle issued by the beginning of April.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I am afraid that it will not be practicable to issue the rifles and accoutrements until after the training season is over. Every effort will be made to hasten the supply; but I cannot at present give any definite date.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    H.M.S. "Indus."
    MR. BARNES (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what number of naval police are employed on H.M.S. "Indus" training establishment for stoker ratings.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): Four, sir.

    Warships at Hayti.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty where the two warships sent to Hayti were at the time of the outbreak there, and when they are expected to arrive at the island.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The "Indefatigable" was at Jamaica and arrived at Hayti on Monday evening. The "Cressy" was on passage from Bermuda to Jamaica. She was expected to be passing within 120 miles of Port au Prince on Monday night.

    Discharges of Tuberculous Soldiers.
    MR. SUMMERBELL (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of soldiers discharged during 1907 suffering from tuberculosis, and who were in receipt of a pension; and the number of men discharged during the same period suffering from the same disease and who were

    557
    in receipt of a pension due to having contracted the disease while in the service or due to the climate where serving.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): Three hundred and fifty-seven men were invalided for tuberculosis during the year 1907. Of these, 216 received pensions (most of them temporary in the first instance) and of these, fifty contracted the disease owing to their military service, and forty from climate.
    COLONEL SEELY (): In view of these figures will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision with regard to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on this question?
    MR. HALDANE: That is a matter now beyond the province of the War Office.

    Enfield Factory Apprentices.
    MR. BRANCH (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that lads who are engaged as apprentices at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, are uniformly discharged on reaching the age of 21, when they have learnt their trade and become competent workmen; and whether he will consider the desirability of discontinuing this course in view of the cost to the State of training these lads, and in the interests of the lads and the parents who have to support them upon small wages during the period of apprenticeship.
    MR. HALDANE: There are points connected with this question which are under consideration, and I shall be glad if my hon. friend would put the Question to me again at a later date.

    Lord Roberts and the Territorial Army Artillery.
    MR. ARNOLD FORSTER (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the opinion expressed by Field-Marshal Earl Roberts to the effect that the artillery of the Territorial Army must be not useless but dangerous in war, the Army Council propose to persist in the policy of spending public money on the creation of 196 batteries of this class of artillery; and
    558
    whether, in view of the great importance of the question, he will lay upon the Table the Report of a Departmental Committee, under the presidency of General Mackinnon (Director of Auxiliary Forces), appointed in 1905 to consider the advisability of creating Volunteer field batteries, together with the minutes referring to the same, by Sir Frederick Stopford, Director of Mlilitary Training, Sir Neville Lyttelton, Chief of the General Staff, and the Secretary of State for War, dated respectively the 29th September, the 6th October, the 7th October, and the 13th November, 1905.
    MR. HALDANE: The policy of giving the Second Line Army a real military organisation, including all arms and services, was deliberately adopted last year by both Houses of Parliament after full discussion, and it is not now proposed to modify this policy in any respect. The gallant Field-Marshal's criticisms, to which the right hon. Gentleman alludes, appear to me to apply as much to the whole Territorial Force as to the Artillery portion of it. As regards the last part of the Question, I cannot undertake to lay on the Table documents which refer to discussions which took place between my predecessor in office and his confidential advisers.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether the officers named were amongst those who he stated were in favour of the policy of 1906?
    MR. HALDANE: I do not propose to criticise or cross-question on this Question.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE (): Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the names of any distinguished or important soldier who is in favour of this proposal?
    MR. HALDANE: There is a very large number.
    MR. PIRIE (): Is it not the case that the value of the Field-Marshal's criticism as an expert is greatly lessened by his marked political bias?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Militia Adjutants.
    LORD J. JOICEY-OEOIL (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has had under his consideration the cases of hardship inflicted on adjutants of the disbanded Militia battalions, some of whom, having been appointed just prior to the issuing of the Order for disbandment, have incurred great and apparently unnecessary expense; and what steps he proposes to take.
    MR. HALDANE: During the last twelve months six adjutants have been appointed to Militia battalions which have since been disbanded. Two of these officers have been re-appointed to other battalions, and as far as possible the wishes of the remaining officers will be favourably considered.

    Militia Battalion Colours.
    LORD J. JOICEY-CECIL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the officers of a Militia battalion assembling at headquarters to hand over their colours to the lord-lieutenant will be entitled to the same pay and allowances for the day as if assembling for the annual training.
    MR. HALDANE: Instructions have been issued that as regards colours application should be submitted to the War Office for authority to deposit them in a church or other public building, and that no other method of disposal could be sanctioned.

    The Sale of the "Coach and Horses."
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in connection with the sale by auction of the Coach and Horses public-house at Portsmouth on 18th July, 1907, a reserve price of £9,500 was placed on lot 1, comprising the house, and £500 on lot 2, comprising the garden; or, if these figures are incorrect, will he state what was the reserve price fixed by the War Office.
    MR. HALDANE: The reserve price was £10,000, as stated in the Question.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the best offer the purchaser has been able to get for his
    560
    property since the Licensing Bill was introduced has been the sum of £4,400?
    MR. LEIF JONES (): Is the property for sale?
    MR. HALDANE: I am not aware of it; it is news to me.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY (): Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the statement by the purchaser that the average profits for thirty years past amount to only 3¼ per cent. on the outlay, and whether, under the circumstances, he will consider the equity of returning one half of the purchase money?
    MR. HALDANE: There have been so many statements made upon the subject of the Licensing Bill that I am quite unable to follow them.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: My Question did not refer to the Licensing Bill, but to the profits of this particular house, which was recently in the hands of the Government, and whether, having regard to the fact that it is impossible within the fourteen years' time limit for the purchaser from the Government to recoup himself, the Government will consider the justice of returning one half of the purchase money.
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Transvaal Garrison.
    SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDEE (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state how much money has been expended on the establishment of the military garrison at Middleburg, Transvaal, the number of troops that garrison is capable of accommodating, and what is intended to be done with this garrison now it has been abandoned for military purposes.
    MR. HALDANE: The buildings for the garrison at Middleburg, Transvaal, cost £248,000, and provided accommodation for fifty-four officers and 2,440 men. As in other cases, on reduction of the garrison, the building material will be transferred elsewhere if required.
    MR. JOHN WARD (): Are the barracks going to be pulled down?
    MR. HALDANE: It is a most costly policy to keep barracks you do not want.

    Territorial Force—Attestation Form.
    MR. GUY BARING (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will give a clearer definition of the words attesting officer and approving officer contained in the Territorial Force attestation form.
    MR. HALDANE: The recruiting regulations specify the individuals who are entitled to attest and approve recruits. The Territorial Force Act lays down that any Lieutenant or Deputy-Lieutenant of a county in the United Kingdom or an officer in the Regular or Territorial Force may be an attesting officer for the Territorial Force as well as a Justice of the Peace. The approving officer may be as a rule an officer not below the rank of field officer of the unit, the adjutant, or officer commanding recruiting areas, Regular units of cavalry, artillery, engineers or infantry or the officer commanding at a military station.

    Wales and the Territorial Army.
    SIR IVOR HERBERT (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the brigadiers to be appointed to the command of brigades of the Territorial Army in the thirteen counties of Wales will be in receipt of pay; where the headquarters of the several brigades will be established; and what will be the number of officers to be appointed to the staffs of the same brigades, and what will be the amount of their emoluments.
    MR. HALDANE: The situation of the headquarters of Territorial Force infantry brigades will be determined as soon as the colonels commanding these brigades and brigade majors, of whom the staff will consist, are appointed and will be settled by the County Associations in consultation with the general officer commanding. These officers will receive a consolidated allowance of £150 and £100 a year respectively to cover all personal expenses and remuneration, except travelling on duty, with the addition of
    562
    acting staff pay and the allowance of their rank and a free horse while present at the annual training in camp of their brigades. A grant will be paid to the Association in which the headquarters are for the provision of any office accommodation and clerical assistance necessary for the brigade staff.

    Volunteer Long Service Medal.
    MR. SEARS (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the case of the many capable and efficient men whose careers, after serving for many years in the Volunteer Forces, will be cut short under the rearrangements consequent on the carrying out of the new Territorial Army scheme, before completing the full term of years entitling them to the long service medal; and what he proposes to do to save these men the double disappointment consequent on their disbandment and the loss of their medals.
    MR. HALDANE: I have not lost sight of the case of the men who do not propose to continue in the service, and who may therefore be unable to complete the period necessary to qualify for the grant of the medal. It is intended to meet this point by special regulations which are now under consideration.

    Army Reports.
    SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when the Report of His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught's Committee on the state of the Army will be published.
    MR. HALDANE: The Question apparently refers to the Annual Report of His Royal Highness as Inspector-General of the Forces. May I refer the hon. Baronet to the decision of the right hon. Gentleman, my predecessor, explained to the House on 15th March, 1905, that the Annual Report of the Inspector-General of the Forces would not be published—a decision with which I entirely agree?

    Government Church at Jullundur.
    MR. BRIGHT (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what circumstances connected with the use of the Government church at Jullundur for services according to the rites of the

    563
    Presbyterian churches of Scotland preceded the orders to the Gordon Highlanders to go to Calcutta, and for what reasons did the licence given by the Bishop of Lahore forbid the celebration of the Holy Communion; and whether any objections were made by the chaplains of the Church of Scotland or the officers of the regiment.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY,): I have no information as to the circumstances preceding the transfer, nor do I know whether any objections were made by the chaplains of the Church of Scotland. The Bishop's licence was framed in accordance with what I understand to have been the general practice of the Indian bishops in recent years.
    SIR J. JARDINE (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is now able to state whether the licence given by the Bishop of Lahore to the Gordon Highlanders to use the Government Church in the Jullundur Cantonment excluded them from celebrating Holy Matrimony or the sacrament of the Lord's Supper by Presbyterian ministers in that building; whether the Gordon Highlanders engaged a theatre in the station for holding-divine services according to the rites of the Churches of Scotland; and whether there has been any instance on record during the administration of India by the Honourable East India Company or under the direct government by the Crown of Presbyterian soldiers being officially precluded from celebrating the Lord's Supper in an Indian Government church.
    MR. MORLEY: As to the first two Questions, I have no definite information. I understand that for some years past, the Bishops have refused to allow Holy Communion to be celebrated according to Presbyterian rites in consecrated churches, and I can only regret that they should feel bound in conscience to take this view of their duty.
    MR. GULLAND (): Are the bishops within their legal right?
    MR. MORLEY: I am told it is so.
    MR. DUNDAS WHITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table Papers giving the legal authority under which the bishops monopolise these Government churches?
    MR. MORLEY: There is a perfectly good historical answer to my hon. friend's question, but it would take too long to give it now.
    MR. SMEATON (): Are not the fabrics of the Church of England supported by the taxation of the Indian people, and are the movements of His Majesty's troops to be dictated by the Bishop of Lahore?
    MR. MORLEY: All that is done is within the law.
    *SIR J. JARDINE: Did the troops-have to engage a theatre? and was the regiment offered an outside shed with a sort of off-license as regards the sacrament?
    MR. SPEAKER: Notice must be given of any further Question.
    MR. LAIDLAW (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether any part of the Ecclesiastical Law of England has been extended directly or sub modo to such distant places in Upper India such as the Jullundur Cantonment, so as to vest the Government churches in the bishops of the Church of England; whether the Governor-General in Council or the Commander-in-Chief in India has any power to require that such churches be open at regulated hours to the officers and men of Scottish regiments and their families stationed at such places for the purpose of divine services, including the sacrament of the Lord's Supper and Holy Matrimony; and whether, now that under the present rules the Gordon Highlanders and their families have been marched right across India to Calcutta so as to be able to attend a Presbyterian church, he can see his way to divest the Indian bishops of the powers of vetoing the use of the Government churches by Presbyterian soldiers, and vest that power in the higher military or civil authorities of the Provinces or in the Government of India.
    MR. MORLEY: The question of law as regards Indian church buildings has been submitted more than once to high legal authorities, who have unanimously held that, so far as consecrated buildings are concerned, Government would not be justified in causing any services other than those of the Church of England to be performed without the consent of the bishop, or in interfering with the bishop's control over the building. Garrison churches are not now consecrated to the use of the Church of England, except when separate provision is made for other denominations, and in view of the arrangement recently made not to post Scottish troops to stations having no Presbyterian or unconsecrated church, except in temporary emergencies, I see now no sufficient reason to introduce legislation to alter the status of consecrated churches.
    SIR J. JARDINE: I give notice that I will call attention to this matter on the earliest opportunity, and move a resolution.
    MR. MORTON (): Has the Episcopal Church of England any rights in India that the Presbyterian Church or other religious bodies have not?
    MR. MORLEY: I would not describe the state of facts quite in that language, but there is no doubt that by an old statute the Church of England has certain privileges in consecrated churches.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GREY (): Will the right hon. Gentleman make provision to extend these privileges to the Scottish Church?
    MR. MORLEY: No; if I were to interfere at all in the matter it would be to withdraw privileges altogether.
    MR. HERBERT (): Arising out of the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman to promote legislation, may I ask whether the Government of India regard the defence of India as of less importance than the prejudices of the bishops?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Whipping Act in India.
    SIR H. COTTON (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Bill for the amendment of the Whipping Act, which has been introduced into the Legislative Council of the Government of India, reduces the number of stripes for juveniles and tends to limit the number in other cases such as rape and robbery with violence; whether the Bill still permits the punishment of flogging for petty larceny; whether it contains a provision that no whipping should be inflicted by order of a Court unless and until the person convicted has had a reasonable opportunity of carrying his case before a Court of Appeal; and whether he is now in a position to give any further information regarding the character and tendency of the proposed legislation.
    MR. MORLEY: I have not yet received the text of the Bill as introduced. When I do so I will place a copy in the Library.

    Indian Decentralisation.
    MR. O'GRADY (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state to the House the reasons for the curtailment of the investigations in India of the Royal Commission on Decentralisation.
    MR. MORLEY: I am not aware that the Royal Commission has curtailed its investigations. The chairman is coming home a fortnight earlier than he had originally intended, for reasons unconnected with the work of the Commission.

    Meherpur Disturbances.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the punitive police sent to protect the Moslems at Meherpur shot dead two of the Moslems and severely injured many others, and that the cost of the punitive police was placed upon the Hindus; and whether he will cause a public inquiry to be made into this matter with a view to finding out the reason that induced the authorities to send the putative police to the locality, and as to why the cost was only placed upon the Hindus.
    MR. MORLEY: I have no knowledge of any such occurrences at Meherpur. If my hon. friend means Sherpur, it is the case that a riot occurred there in September in which the police, firing in self-defence, killed two rioters and wounded eight. The additional police had been stationed there in the interests of the public tranquillity, on account of the serious disturbances that took place in the district in April and May. I am not aware that they were intended to protect any one section of the population rather than any other; nor have I any reason to believe that the cost was placed only upon the Hindus.
    *MR. REES (): Is the fact that two members of their community were shot a reason for charging the cost of the punitive police against the Mahomedans, who form a majority of the population, but are the victims of the boycott?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Mymensingh Disturbances Report.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the report of Mr. Bhupendranath Bose, a leading Calcutta solicitor, and Lieutenant-Colonel Mukerji, with regard to the Mymensingh disturbance of 3rd January and the following dates; whether he is aware that the gentleman named asked Mr. Clark, the district magistrate, to allow a responsible police official to be present during the investigations, such request being refused; and, having regard to the allegations of unprovoked assault and robbery against the local police, what steps he intends taking to allay the effect such unofficial report must have upon the people of India generally.
    MR. MORLEY: I have been favoured with a copy of the report, from which it appears that Mr. Clark was unable to permit the attendance of a police officer, because there was not time to obtain the sanction of the higher authorities. A fortnight before this "unofficial commission "commenced its inquiries, the local government had directed the additional magistrate at Mymensing to hold a special inquiry, the result of which I await.

    Excise Duties on Jamaica Manufactures.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the amount of the excise, as distinct from the customs, duties on soap and matches manufactured in the island of Jamaica for the past three years.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): Under Law 26 of 1900, the excise duty levied on soap was at the rate of 10d. per box of 56 lbs., and under Law 12 of 1901, the excise duty levied on matches was 3d. per gross of boxes. By Law I of 1905, the excise duty on matches was raised to 6d. per gross of boxes. Law 6 of 1905, increased the excise duties on both articles for so long as the surcharge of 6 per cent. was levied on imports. Under this law a surtax of 2d. per box was imposed on soap, and 9s. 9d. per 100 gross of boxes on matches. The surcharge on imports was abolished on 27th February, 1906, when, of course, the surtax on the excise would cease also.

    Property Tax in Jamaica.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the tax payable on property in Jamaica over the value of £1,000 is limited to 1s. in every £10, and that the tax on values under £1,000 may go from 1s. to 5s. as may be required; and, if so, can he state whether it is the intention of the Government to make any alteration with a view to the abolition of this distinction in favour of those with higher incomes.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The property tax in Jamaica is payable at the rate of 8d, on every £10 of the gross value of real property, and there is no such distinction as that described by the hon. Member. In the case of the parish general rates, which are collected for parochial purposes, it is provided that the rate to be levied on every £10 of the value of any property after and in excess of £1,000 shall in no case exceed 1s. in every £10 of such value. This limitation was imposed with a view to discouraging extravagence on the part of local bodies, and to prevent unduly heavy burdens falling on the

    569
    larger properties, and it was calculated that the effect of this limitation would (in parishes where it applied)" only increase the rates on other properties by about ½d. on the average. The Secretary of State sees no reason for the amendment of the law in this respect, the limitation having been imposed as a concession to the elected members of the legislature and generally accepted as satisfactory.

    Depression in the Diamond Trade.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how many natives discharged from the Kimberley and the Premier diamond mines, owing to depression in the diamond trade, are now employed on the Rand mines.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I am not in a position to give the figures desired by the hon. Member.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman get the information?
    MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I have already told the House that I am loth to burden the Transvaal Government with unnecessary requests for information. They are very good in supplying information, but the getting it involves them in considerable expense, and we must be sparing with our calls on the internal administration of self-governing Colonies.

    Labour for Southern Rhodesia.
    MR. BRIDGEMAN (): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the destination for which natives in Central Africa are recruited under official sanction.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Southern Rhodesia only.

    Indians at Vancouver.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Under - Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that fifteen Indians arriving at Vancouver on the steamer "Empress," of Japan, and who were passed by the Dominion immigration
    570
    authorities and released from the detention shed, were at once informed that as they could not comply with the provisions of the Natal Act they must be deported, and on their refusal to re-embark were imprisoned; and, in view of the fact that the Natal Act does not apply to Japanese or Chinese immigrants, he will make representations to the Government of Canada that the Natal Act in its special application to Indian Asiatics should be reconsidered, and that the fifteen Indians should be released pending such consideration.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I understand that the Indians referred to have been released by order of the Court of British Columbia. The Secretary of State is in correspondence with the Government of Canada on the subject of the Act, which is not one of special application to Indian Asiatics.

    The Excavation of Memphis.
    MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Egyptian Government intend to give financial assistance to Professor Flinders Petrie in his project of excavating the ancient city of Memphis, on the Nile; and whether, in view of the fact that this is by far the greatest arehæological work of recent times and likely to add greatly to our knowledge of ancient Egyptian history and civilisation, he will endeavour to obtain a promise of funds in aid of the undertaking from the British Exchequer.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,; for Sir Edward Grey): With regard to the first part of the hon. Member's Question, my right hon. friend has received no report on this subject from His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General at Cairo, but will ask for one. In view of the many more pressing calls upon the Exchequer, my right hon. friend cannot promise to recommend compliance with the hon. Member's suggestion.

    Brereton Colliery Disaster.
    MR. ALBERT STANLEY (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can say what present means are being taken to recover the bodies

    571
    of the workmen entombed in the Coppice Pit of the Brereton Collieries, Rugeley.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I am informed that up to the present the efforts of the management have had to be directed to preventing the water from flooding the main workings of the colliery. No steps have been taken, so far, to unwater the submerged dip workings where the bodies lie, and no decision, I understand, has yet been come to by the owners on the subject. It is to be feared that in any case the work of unwatering the workings would be long and difficult. The feeder of water has decreased in volume but is still flowing through the submerged workings at the rate of 500 gallons per minute. As I said before, if no inquest can he held I think a special inquiry will be desirable.
    MR. ALBERT STANLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the inquiry will be held?
    MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; but I should say the sooner the better.

    Railway Dock Labourers and the Conciliation Boards.
    MR. C. DUNCAN (): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether workmen regularly employed at a weekly wage by railway companies as dock goods workers or cargo men are excluded from the scope and operation of the Conciliation Board; if so, what are the grounds for such exclusion; and whether he will consider the desirability of arranging that conciliation should be made as wide in its application as possible to workmen directly employed by railway companies with a view to the prevention of industrial conflicts and the consequent dislocation of traffic.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): The workmen alluded to have not been included by any of the companies in their schemes at the outset. Some of them belong to Dockers' Unions, and neither Dockers' Unions, nor Unions representing mechanics in shops have applied to be included, but under the provisions of the
    572
    arrangement made on the 6th November any grades not included at the outset may apply to a Central Board when formed, and the Central Board may, if it thinks desirable, group them under one of the existing sections or arrange for the constitution of a new Board.

    Out-of-Work Benefits in New York.
    MR. R. DUNCAN (): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he can inform the House of the general practice of the trade unions and trade societies of New York in regard to allowances for out-of-work benefit.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: According to information furnished by His Majesty's Consul-General at New York, the only trade unions in New York which pay out of-work benefit are the cigar makers, the window glass workers, and the German-American branch of the Typographical Union. The maximum allowances in the first of these cases are said to be three dollars per week for eighteen weeks to members of at least two years' standing. It is possible that there may be some other instances, but I understand that the subject of out-of-work benefits paid by trade unions has not been investigated in the United States in recent years.
    *MR. R. DUNCAN: Must we infer that the great building trades in New York have no out-of-work benefit?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEwas understood to reply in the affirmative.

    Brussels Carpets.
    MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether his attention has been called to the fact that so-called Brussels carpets are now largely manufactured in England and sold in the Belgian market at prices considerably lower than the prices for which the same carpets can be produced in Belgium; and whether he has any official information showing the circumstances which enable the British manufacturers to undersell the manufacturers of Belgium in their own market.
    MR. LLOYD - GEORGE: Brussels carpets have been made in this country for many years. I have no official

    573
    information which would enable me to answer the last part of the Question, and if I had, it might not be politic to make it public.
    MR. MYER (): Is it not a fact that a large quantity of raw material is imported into this country, manufactured here, and re-exported to the country from which the raw material came?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Cheltenham Post Office Cycle Cleaner.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS (): I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a man is employed in the Post Office at Cheltenham to clean cycles and do similar work; that he works sixty-three hours a week, for which he is paid less than 4d. an hour; and that he was recently specially called on duty on Sunday to repair a cycle without payment; and whether he will look into the case and see that the man's duties and pay are revised.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): I will have inquiry made at once, and will inform the hon. Member of the result.

    Great Horkesley School—Conservative Meeting.
    MR. LEVYLEVER (): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to a Conservative meeting held in the school at Great Horkesley, near Colchester, convened by invitations inscribed beer and tobacco, on which occasion beer and tobacco were gratuitously distributed; and if he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to put an end to the continuance of such a system.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA,): The only school at Great Horkesley appears to be a Church of England School in unison with the National Society, the trustees of which are apparently the rector and the churchwardens, and the foundation managers of which are the rector ex officio and three members of the Church of England appointed by subscribers to the school. I
    574
    am not at present aware of the precise provisions of the trust or the degree of responsibility which rests upon the trustees or the managers for this use of the schoolhouse with the accompanying gratuitous distribution of beer and tobacco in the interest of a political party, which is alleged to have taken place.

    Education (Provision of Meals) Act.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, in cases of local education authorities of necessitous areas, within the meaning of the Education (Provision of Meals) Act, failing to put the Act into operation, he will make representations to the local authorities on the matter.
    MR. McKENNA: The Board of Education are not empowered by the Provision of Meals Act to make representations to local education authorities urging them to adopt its provisions, but shortly after the passing of the Act the Board issued a circular calling the attention of local authorities to their powers under it, and to the advantages that might be obtained by exercising them.

    Birch Parish—Small Holdings.
    MR. LEVY LEVER: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that a notice has been issued by the parish council of Birch, near Colchester, Essex, stating that applications for small holdings in the parish of Birch must be made to the clerk of the parish council on or before 16th March, 1908; and whether, in view of the provisions of The Small Holdings Act 1907, he will take steps to prevent the issue of such notices.
    MR. J. H. LEWIS (; for Sir EDWARD STRACHEY): The Board were not aware of the notice until their attention was directed to it by my hon. friend. They will make inquiry into the matter, and communicate the result to him.

    Ecclesiastical Commissioners' Licensed Property.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY (): I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Crowe Division, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whether he can state what licensed premises are at present

    575
    owned by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and what number of such premises they have disposed of since 1904.
    MR. TOMKINSON (): According to a reply given on March 11, 1907, the total number of public houses in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners' estates was 332. Within the last twenty years 100 fully-licensed houses in London alone have been reduced, a time limit having been given to the tenant to take effect at the end of the lease. The policy of the Commissioners is to reduce the number of licences on their properties by allowing them to lapse whenever the lease falls in, unless special circumstances and the requirements of the neighbourhood call for their renewal. Beerhouse licences are never renewed. No premises, I believe, have been disposed of since 1904.
    MR. BELLOC (): Are we to understand that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners regard the sale of fermented liquor as in some way wrong or immoral?
    MR. LEIF JONES (): Is it not the case that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have found licences are injurious to the value of the surrounding property?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Scottish Herring Fisheries.
    MR. WATT (): I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, if he is aware that the Clyde fishermen, who habitually use the seine trawl net when in the Clyde, are unable to use that type of net when they go elsewhere in Scotland to fish, on account of the damage it does to spawn and spawning herrings; and if he will say why the Clyde fishery district is treated differently from the other fishery districts of Scotland.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): I understand my hon. friend's information is not quite accurate; the seine net can be used in the capture of herrings, without any interference, all round the Scottish coasts except on the Ballantrae Banks and the adjacent waters covered by the Fishery Board's byelaw and in Loch
    576
    Gruinart, Islay, where the employment of the net is also prohibited by a byelaw of the Board.
    MR. AINSWOKTH (): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware it is generally considered that the use of the seine net is extremely injurious to herrings during the spawning season?
    MR. SINCLAIR: I cannot answer that without notice, but I do not think my information bears out that statement.
    MR. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware 1,200 boxes of herrings were sold the other day at 3s. per box, and is this not a case of killing the goose that lays the golden egg.
    MR. R. DUNCANasked if the Fishery Board did not give as a reason for inaction that the practical difficulties of enforcing the desired restrictions were too great, although they quite admitted that they were wanted for permanent success.
    MR. SINCLAIRreplied that it was not so.

    Crofter Legislation.
    MR. WEIR (): I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the fact that the Lords, when rejecting the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill, indicated that they were prepared to co-operate in securing land legislation for the Highland crofting counties and districts where crofting conditions prevail, will the Government consider the expediency of introducing an Amendment of the Crofters Acts at the earliest possible moment with a view to the Bill becoming law this session, especially having regard to the land hunger and distress in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I am not able to make any statement at present on this subject.
    MR. WEIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every Cabinet Minister who has dealt with this question is pledged to the hilt to advance legislation for the Highland and crofting counties?
    MR. SINCLAIRmade no reply.
    MR. WEIR: What! No reply? I am not surprised.

    Stirling Crown Lands.
    MR. MORTON (): I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether any decision has yet been arrived at with regard to the application for ton five-acre small holdings on the Crown lands at Stirling adjoining Stirling Castle.
    MR. SINCLAIR: This Question should, I think, be addressed to the Treasury as representing the Woods and Forests Department.

    Returns of Cattle Drives in Ireland.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the practice to exclude from the Returns of Agrarian Crimes cases of cattle-driving in which it has come to the knowledge of the police, either from their own personal observations or as the result of investigations made by them, that three or more persons were engaged in the drivings, and that they were accompanied by circumstances of terror sufficient to constitute an unlawful assembly, but in which cases it has been found impracticable to institute proceedings for the indictable offence owing to the inability of the police to identify the offenders or the unwillingness of herds or other persons to give evidence; and, if so, what was the number of such cases excluded from the statistics of agrarian crime in the year 1907.
    I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the constabulary authorities have considered the question of recording under the heading "intimidation" cases of cattle-driving which, for technical reasons, are not regarded as falling within the category of crimes known as unlawful assemblies; and, if so, what are the reasons against the adoption of the former system of record.
    I beg further to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland upon what principle it has been decided to record in the statistics of crime cases of threatening notices or letters, while the great majority of cases of cattle-driving, of the genuineness of which the police are satisfied, are excluded from record in such statistics.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): The Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary informs me that no such cases as are referred to in the first of the hon. Member's Questions have been excluded from the Returns of Agrarian Crime. In reply to the second Question, offences are only recorded under the heading of intimidation when acts calculated to cause terror are committed or when personal violence is threatened. As regards the third Question, the offence of sending a threatening letter is a felony punishable by penal servitude and is therefore necessarily included in the Returns. The question whether cattle-driving is an indictable offence depends entirely upon the circumstances of the particular case. None but indictable offences are included in the Returns of Agrarian Crime.

    Cavan Magistracy.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many magistrates have been appointed in East and West Cavan, respectively, on the recommendation of His Majesty's present Lieutenant of the county; is he aware that some of the appointments are contrary to the wishes of the people; and will he make representations to the Lieutenant of the county, with a view to having appointments made which would secure, as far as possible, that the majority of the people have at any rate an equal representation on the bench with the minority.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Lord Chancellor informs me that the numbers of magistrates who have been appointed in East and West Cavan upon the recommendation of the present Lieutenant of the county are five and six, respectively, and of the eleven so appointed eight are Roman Catholics and three are Protestants. The Lord Chancellor has no reason to believe that any of the appointments are unpopular, and he does not think it necessary to make any representations on the subject to His Majesty's Lieutenant.

    Irish Intermediate Schools.
    MR. HAZLETON (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the enforcement

    579
    of a University standard on intermediate schools in Ireland in contravention of the Education Act, and to the effect of setting such difficult papers upon the practice of cramming; and whether steps will be taken by the Board to modify the mathematical examination papers in future.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Intermediate Education Board inform me that they have not used the term University standard as descriptive of the quality of their examinations. It may be that some of their advanced examinations are more difficult than the initial examinations of certain Universities, but this would not be a contravention of the Intermediate Education Act. That the standard of their examination papers generally is not too high is, they say, evidenced by the fact that in the intermediate examinations of 1907 the percentage of passes in the various grades averaged over fifty-seven.

    Teachers v. Mathematical Tests.
    MR. HAZLETON (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether a petition for a modification of mathematical tests has been presented on behalf of a section of the teachers to the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland; whether he is aware that identical questions set to students for mathematical honours in Dublin University have appeared in the examination papers for junior grade intermediate pupils; and that to 90 per cent. of middle and senior grade intermediate pupils mathematical tests of a practically impossible character have been applied; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any, and if any, what, action in the matter.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Intermediate Education Board have from time to time received petitions with regard to the alleged difficulty of their examination papers, but more frequently as to subjects other than mathematics. The Board are not aware that identical questions have been set in Dublin University mathematical honour examinations and intermediate examinations. In the intermediate examinations of 1907, the percentage of senior grade students who passed in the different mathematical subjects ranged from seventy-seven to
    580
    ninety, and the percentage of middle grade students who passed in those subjects ranged from sixty-six to eighty-five. These figures completely dispose of the suggestion that to 90 per cent. of such pupils, the mathematical tests are practically impossible. The standard of examination is a matter within the discretion of the Board.

    Royal Irish Constabulary Regulations.
    MR. DELANY (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Sergeant Molloy, Royal Irish Constabulary, Kilmalogue, Portarlington, is married to a woman from the town whose friends reside in the street in which the police barrack is situated, can he say whether this is in conformity with the constabulary regulations; and, if not, what course he proposes taking.
    MR. BIRRELL: Sergeant Molloy is married to a native of Queen's County, and his wife has no relatives or connections in King's County, in which the sergeant is serving, except one distant connection. The Inspector-General informs me that it is not contrary to regulations for the sergeant to remain at his present station.

    Land Purchase in Kerry.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the total purchase price and total cost of improvements of all estates purchased by the Congested Districts Board before the passing of the Act of 1903 for all congested Ireland, and for congested Kerry, respectively; and what are the corresponding figures since the passing of the Act of 1903.
    MR. BIRRELL: The total purchase price of estates bought by the Congested Districts Board prior to the Act of 1903 is, in congested districts generally, £557,685; and in county Kerry, £3,893. The total cost of improvement works on those estates is, in congested districts generally, £181,823, and in County Kerry, £161. The total purchase price of estates bought by the Congested Districts Board since the Act of 1903 is, in congested districts generally, £1,417,432, and in County Kerry, £143,132. The

    581
    total cost of improvement works on those estates is, in congested districts generally, £274,668; and in County Kerry. £19,449.

    Irish Fish Exports.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the value of fish exported from Ireland, caught by Irish boats, and imported into Ireland in the year 1907; what are the corresponding figures for Scotland; and whether any steps have been taken by the Congested Districts Board or the Department of Agriculture to secure, by co-operation among the various fishing ports or otherwise, that a regular supply of Irish fish would be available to meet the demands of those districts in Ireland that now have to import their fish, at considerable cost, from foreign ports.
    MR. BIRRELL: The statistics as to the Irish exports and imports of fish for 1907 are not yet available. I have no information as to the figures for Scotland. The Department of Agriculture have made extensive inquiries as to the best means of securing that fish for Irish consumption should be supplied from Irish sources, and of developing additional markets in Ireland for fish taken at home. The question is beset with difficulties which it has not yet been possible to overcome, the chief difficulty being that the large distributing markets are better able than small Irish fishing ports to send an unfailing supply to the small dealers in many parts of Ireland. The Department, however, are pursuing their inquiries in the matter, and will do their best to bring about the desired end.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLsuggested that a number of ports might combine for the purpose of sending fish away.

    Superannuation Regulations.
    MR. LONSDALE (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the case of the Reverend T. Long, late Church of Ireland chaplain of the North Dublin Union, to whom the board of guardians have awarded a superannuation allowance on his retirement from office, but to which
    582
    allowance the Local Government Board has declined to give its sanction on the ground that the reverend gentleman had not devoted his whole time to the service of the guardians; whether he is aware that, prior to 1905, Mr. Long had held the chaplaincy of the House of Industry Hospital, Dublin, and that, although he was qualified by length of service to a pension in respect of this appointment, the sanction of the late Lord-Lieutenant was refused for a similar reason, but that subsequently, on re-investigation by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, as Chief Secretary, it was held, on the advice of his Law Officers, that the latter pension was legally payable and was accordingly granted; and whether he will examine the facts connected with the two cases mentioned, and take the opinion of the present Law Officers as to the action of the Local Government Board on the question of the validity of the award of a pension to Mr. Long by the North Dublin Guardians.
    MR. BIRRELL: Section 1 of the Union Officers (Ireland) Superannuation Act, 1865, provides that a superannuation allowance can only be given to an officer whose whole time has been devoted to the service of the union. While the Reverend Mr. Long was chaplain of the workhouse of the North Dublin Union, he was also rector of the parish of St. Michan's, and therefore he cannot possibly be held to have devoted his whole time to the service of the union. The statute is most explicit, and no necessity arises for taking the opinion of the Law Officers upon its construction. Mr. Long received a pension as chaplain to the House of Industry Hospital under the Act relating to the hospital. In that case there is no condition that officers must have devoted their whole time to the service.

    The Glenahiery Explosion.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary, in declining to produce the report of County Inspector Jennings, at the recent hearing, before Mr. Justice Kenny, at the Waterford Assizes, of the appeal in Lord Ashtown's case, was acting under instructions; and whether he will state the date of the report of County

    583
    Inspector Jennings and the date at which this report was received by the Inspector-General in Dublin Castle.
    MR. MOORE (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if District Inspector Preston made no report or other communication to the authorities in respect of the outrage at Glenahiery from his arrival on the 17th August to the. 7th September, or if the contrary is the fact; when were such reports or communications prior to the 7th September received; and whether they are still in existence.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that on the first publication of District Inspector Preston's report regarding the Glenahiery outrage, it was suggested that Lord Ashtown was responsible for, or privy to, the outrages on his own premises, and that since that date the White Paper laid upon the Table proves that the report in question was not directly drawn up by District Inspector Preston, he will state who of the various Dublin Castle officials who amended Inspector Preston's report was responsible for the suggestion that Lord Ashtown had committed the outrage himself; and whether he can state if the Inspector-General of Constabulary was himself present at all the meetings in the Castle when this report was being prepared for official publication.
    MR. LONSDALE: May I also ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he can now give an explanation of the course adopted by the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary in refusing to produce in Court at Waterford, in the matter of Lord Ashtown's claim, the original report of District Inspector Preston, which the Government had instructed him to produce.
    THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): There are four Questions on this subject, one of which is addressed to myself. As my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary is less familiar with the facts than I am, he has asked me to
    584
    answer all the Questions. I will first answer the Question addressed to myself.
    The Inspector-General, in accordance with the usual practice, claims privilege for all police documents connected with the case. He informs me that during the subsequent proceedings in Court the advice which he had received from the Government some days previously to the effect that he was at liberty, if the occasion should require, to produce District Inspector Preston's original report, was not present to his mind.
    In reply to the first Question of the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh, the Inspector-General, in claiming privilege for County Inspector Jennings' reports, was not acting under instructions, but in accordance with the usual practice. The first report of County Inspector Jennings in which he expressed dissent from the conclusions of District Inspector Preston, was a report dated 14th September and received by the Inspector-General on 16th September. Mr. Jennings was at once directed to communicate to the parties his statement indicating dissent from District Inspector Preston, and this he did by letter on the 18th September. Mr. Jennings had previously forwarded to the Inspector-General, without any expression of dissent, a report of the District Inspector dated 18th August in which the latter first stated the conclusions arrived at by him as to the window and door being open at the time of the explosion.
    In reply to the Question of the hon. Member for North Armagh, there were frequent communications between District Inspector Preston and the Inspector-General between 17th August and 7th September, several of them were by telegraph in cipher, and some were by personal interviews. This is the usual practice when local police are investigating the circumstances of crime or alleged crime. But no formal and complete report of the entire circumstances of the case was sent until the 7th September. I cannot give the dates of all these communications. They are all still in existence, except the original cipher telegrams which, in accordance with official practice, were destroyed after being deciphered.
    The statements in the Question of the hon. and gallant Member for East Down as

    585
    to the report of District Inspector Preston are absolutely inaccurate. The hon. and gallant Member either did not hear, or did not grasp the full meaning of the statements made by my right hon. friend and by me on the 11th instant. It is sufficient for me now to repeat that no report of District Inspector Preston was published by the Government until the issue of the White Paper. No report of his was altered or amended by any official of Dublin Castle. As my right hon. friend has stated, the Inspector-General was present at the interviews between the Law Officers, the Under-Secretary, and Mr. Preston, but no report was prepared at those interviews. The report, as already stated, was prepared by Mr. Preston alone.
    MR. LONSDALE: Are the instructions given to the Inspector-General with regard to the production of documents in writing?
    MR. CHERRY: They were given by telegraph by me.
    MR. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay a copy of the telegram on the Table.
    MR. CHERRY: No, Sir, I cannot undertake to do so.
    MR. LONSDALE: Did the instructions of the right hon. Gentleman himself given to the Inspector-General to produce documents include the report of County Inspector Jennings?
    *MR. CHERRY: No, Sir; the instruction referred only to Inspector Preston's report.
    MR. LONSDALE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Inspector-General declined to produce the report of County Inspector Jennings when it was called for by Lord Ashtown's counsel?
    *MR. CHERRY: I have already explained that the Inspector-General stated that he claimed privilege for County Inspector Jenning's report. In doing so he was not acting under instructions but in accordance with the usual practice.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Is it not a fact that in the course of examination on the
    586
    appeal case District Inspector Preston admitted under oath that he set his signature to a report the inference in which he admitted was incorrect, and had no foundation in fact?
    *MR. CHERRY: I was not present in Court during the case. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, the Member for Dublin University, was present and is far better able to answer the Question than I am.
    MR. LONSDALE: When was the first report received from County Inspector Jennings?
    *MR. CHERRY: The only report of which I am aware was received on September 16th.
    MR. LONSDALErose to put a further Question when Mr. Speaker observed that the hon. Member had already asked several Questions, and suggested that notice should be given.

    Marshall Estate, County Kerry.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Marshall estate, county Kerry, sold some-years ago under Section 6 of the 1903 Purchase Act, has yet been valued; whether the valuation has been communicated to the landlord; and, if so, what is the cause of the delay in completing the purchase.
    MR. BIRRELL: The hon. Member is in error in supposing that the estate in question has been sold. The Estates Commissioners have had it inspected, but have not yet communicated to the owner the estimated price which they are prepared to offer. In dealing with the case the Commissioners are obliged to have regard to the priority of other cases in which proceedings were commenced at an earlier date.

    The Irish Language in Irish Schools.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of schools in which Irish was taught within school hours, the number of pupils to whom it was taught, the average time given per week, and the payment made to the teachers for this

    587
    work during the year 1907; and the number of schools in which Irish was taught outside school hours, the number of pupils engaged, the average time given per week, and the payment made to the teachers during the same year for this work.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the preparation of a Return containing the information asked for in the Question will be a difficult matter, and will take at least a month. I will communicate the facts to the hon. Member as soon as the Commissioners can furnish me with them.
    *MR. R. DUNCAN ()asked what percentage of the Irish people habitually used the old Celtic language, and how this compared with the percentage in Scotland habitually using Gaelic.
    MR. BIRRELLreplied that he had nothing to do with what was taught in Scottish schools.

    Cavan Evicted Tenants.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say whether any steps have yet been taken to put in force the compulsory powers of The Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907, in County Cavan; how many evicted tenants are to be reinstated, and how many have been reinstated since the Land Act of 1903 in County Cavan; and will he say if County Cavan is receiving exceptional treatment in the working of this Act.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have not yet exercised the compulsory powers of the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, in any case in County Cavan. Forty-five evicted tenants in that county have already been reinstated or provided with new holdings, and the Commissioners have recorded sixty-one applicants as suitable to receive holdings if such can be provided for them. No exceptional treatment has been given by the Estates Commissioners to County Cavan.

    Irish Congested Districts Board.
    MR. HUGH LAW (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he is aware
    588
    of the widespead dissatisfaction caused in the congested districts by the announcement of the projected suspension of the work of the parish committees for want of funds; and if he can now say what provision the Government propose to make in order to secure a continuance of of the work.
    MR. BIRRELL: In my Answer to Questions put by the hon. Member for East Mayo on the 4th instant, I made a very full statement as to the funds of the Congested Districts Board, and explained the reasons why the Board have, to their great regret, been obliged to decide upon the suspension of parish committee grants in the coming financial year. I am afraid that I can add nothing to that Answer.

    Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants.
    MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, how soon the promised Report as to the operations under the Evicted Tenants Act of last session will be ready.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Return under Section 3 of the Evicted Tenants Act is at present in the hands of the printer, and the Estates Commissioners hope to have it ready for presentation before the end of the month.

    Irish university Education.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he can now state the date on which the Government intend to introduce their State-aided Roman Catholic University Bill; and if any arrangement has been come to as to the moving of the Home Rule Resolution.
    MR. BIRRELL: I am unable to recognise in the description given by the hon. and gallant Member any measure which I am likely to introduce, but if he refers, as I presume he does, to the Bill to improve and extend University education in Ireland which was alluded to in the King's Speech, I hope to introduce that Bill during the week beginning on 30th instant. The latter part of the Question should not be addressed to me, but I am informed that the Resolution will be moved on 30th instant.

    Tralee Cattle Drive.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a cattle drive took place off the Cragg and Ardcrome farms, Tralee, county Kerry, on Sunday, the 8th March last, during the absence of the caretaker and his police escort at mass; whether all the cattle have been recovered; whether any arrests have been made in connection with the outrage; and, if so, what sentences were imposed; and could he give any information as to the reason for cattle being driven off these farms.
    MR. BIRRELL: The fact is as stated in the first part of the Question. All the cattle except two have been recovered. The police arrested five persons and applied that they should be bound over to keep the peace. One was discharged for want of identification, and four were required to find bail. Two of the four gave bail, and the other two were committed to prison for two months in default of giving bail. I cannot say why the cattle were driven off' the farms.

    Union Jack over Irish Schools.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will say if there is any Departmental objection to the Union Jack being hoisted over national schools in Ireland where a general desire is expressed for such outward sign of loyalty, and where the manager raises no objection.
    MR. BIRRELL: Before taking any steps in this matter, I must be supplied with better evidence than I possess to satisfy me that the hoisting of the Union Jack over national schools in Ireland would promote the peace, harmony, and loyalty of the neighbourhood.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: May I ask in all sincerity whether in those parts of the country where the people are unanimously loyal——
    SEVERAL HON. MEMBERSon the NATIONALIST Benches: Where are they 1
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: In Ulster. Is there any objection to hoisting Union Jacks, a largo number of which have been supplied for that purpose?
    MR. BIRRELL: I should be very glad to be supplied with evidence as to complete unanimity existing in any part of Ireland. I have no desire whatever to interfere with the wishes of the Department.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I press for an answer. Where there is a unanimous desire on the part of the children, their parents, and the managers, is there any objection to the flying of the Union Jack?
    MR. BIRRELL: Where complete unanimity exists in the neighbourhood the flying of the Union Jack is an excellent thing, but I do not wish it to become a centre of dissension.

    Waterford Assizes—Case of Nicholas Quinlan.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland on what grounds the trial of Nicholas Quinlan, who was charged with forging a ballot paper while acting as presiding officer at a municipal election, was adjourned at the Waterford assizes; and why did he not send up a bill to the grand jury.
    MR. CHERRY: The trial referred to in the Question was postponed on my application for reasons which I do not think it, in the public interest, advisable now to state. It is my intention to proceed with the case at the next Waterford assizes.

    London and North Western Railway and Kingston Harbour Dues.
    MR. CLANCY (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is intended to allow the steamers of the London and North Western Company to make use of Kingston Harbour without charge; and, if not, what charge will be made.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The London and North Western Company will be charged the same dues as other companies using the pier for like purposes.
    MR. CLANCY: Will it be more or less than the Dublin company?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say without notice.
    MR. CLANCY: Is it to be a merely nominal charge?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir. It will be exactly the same charge as is made to other steamers.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of any case where the charge is made at all? Is it not a fact that no such charge has been made before for the use of a royal pier?
    MR. RUNICIMAN: We have been charging dues to the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company ever since we made the pier, and we shall charge dues to the London North Western Company on exactly the same scale.

    Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill.
    MR. McCRAE (): I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he is aware that the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill has been rejected on Second Reading in the House of Lords; and if he can state what steps the Government intend to take in the matter.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): I am not in a position to make any statement.
    MR. McCRAE: Would it not be possible to have a conference between the two Houses, as suggested in the Resolution of this House passed last year?
    MR. ASQUITH: Perhaps my hon. friend will give notice of that Question. I am not very sanguine as to the result of such a conference.
    MR. PIRIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to make a statement?
    MR. ASQUITH: No, I cannot.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR ()asked in what order the Votes would be taked the next day.
MR. ASQUITH: First the Navy Votes 10 and I, and then the Army Votes A.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I thought there was a private understanding between my right hon. friend the Member for the Wellington Division of Somerset, and the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury that Vote 10 of the Navy should be taken first, and that Vote 1 should be postponed till after the Army Vote A.
MR. ASQUITH: If the right hon. Gentleman prefers that, it can be done.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A (in respect of the Education (Local Authorities) Bill): Mr. Timothy Davies and Mr. Walker; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Education (Local Authorities) Bill): Mr. Benn and Mr. Acland.
Report to lie upon the Table.

POLLING DISTRICTS AND REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 92.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 92.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 160.]

POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL.
Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 93.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 93.]
Bill to be taken into consideration upon Monday next.

NEW BILLS.
  IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOLS (HEATING) BILL.
  "To provide for the Heating of National School Houses in Ireland," presented by Captain Craig; supported by Colonel M'Calmont, Mr. Lonsdale, Mr. Moore, Mr. Thomas Corbett, Mr. Charles Craig, and Mr. Barrie; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 161.]
  TRUST INVESTMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Law as to the Investment of Trust Funds," presented by Mr. Harmood - Banner; supported by Mr. Armitage and Mr. Scott; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 162.].
  PHARMACY BILL
  "To amend the Pharmacy Acts," presented by Mr. Winfrey; supported by Mr. Idris, Mr. Henniker Heaton, Mr. Gulland, Mr. Remnant, Mr. Dobson, Mr. Cowan, Mr. Crooks, Mr. Vickerman Rutherford, and Mr. Ellis Griffith; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 163.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on the Business of Supply, if under discussion when the Business is postponed this day, be resumed and proceeded with, though opposed, after the interrupton of the Business."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
The House divided; Ayes, 302; Noes. 75. (Division List No. 46).

AYES.

Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Fenwick, Charles

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Ferens, T. R.

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

Clancy, John Joseph

Ffrench, Peter

Agnew, George William

Cleland, J. W.

Findlay, Alexander

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Clough, William

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Alden, Percy

Clynes, J. R.

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

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

Fullerton, Hugh

Astbury, John Meir

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Furness, Sir Christopher

Atherley-Jones, L.

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

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

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

Barker, John

Cox, Harold

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Gooch, George Peabody

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Crean, Eugene

Grant, Corrie

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Crooks, William

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Beale, W. P.

Crossley, William J.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Curran, Peter Francis

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

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

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Gulland, John W.

Bennett, E. N.

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

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

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Delany, William

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Hall, Frederick

Blank, Arthur W.

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

Halpin, J.

Bottomley, Horatio

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

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Boulton, A. C. F.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hart-Davies, T.

Branch, James

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Harvey A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Brigg, John

Dillon, John

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

Bright, J. A.

Donelan, Captain A.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Duckworth, James

Hayden, John Patrick

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leign)

Duffy, William J.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Bryce, J. Annan

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Hedges, A. Paget

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Helme, Norval Watson

Burke, E. Haviland-

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Hemmerde, Edward George

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Elibank, Master of

Henry, Charles S.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

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

Byles, William Pollard

Erskine, David C.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Essex, R. W.

Higham, John Sharp

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Chance, Frederick William

Everett, R. Lacey

Hodge, John

Hogan, Michael

Mooney, J. J.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Holt, Richard Durning

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Seely, Colonel

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Horniman, Emslie John

Morrell, Philip

Simon, John Allsebrook

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Hudson, Walter

Murray, James

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Myer, Horatio

Soares, Ernest J.

Jardine, Sir J.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Newnes, F. Notts, (Bassetlaw)

Stanley, Hn, A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Nicholls, George

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Jowett, F. W.

Nolan, Joseph

Summerbell, T.

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe.)

Kekewich, Sir George

Nuttall, Harry

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Kelley, George D.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Kilbride, Denis

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Thomasson, Franklin

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

Laidlaw, Robert

O'Donnell T. (Kerry, W.)

Tomkinson, James

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

O'Dowd, John

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Lambert, George

O'Grady, J.

Toulmin, George

Lamont, Norman

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Verney, F. W.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, H.)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Partington, Oswald

Vivian, Henry

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Wadsworth, J.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

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

Walton, Joseph

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Perks, Robert William

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Wardle, George J.

Lough, Thomas

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Waring, Walter

Lundon, W.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Lupton, Arnold

Pollard, Dr.

Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Lyell, Charles Henry

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

Waterlow, D. S.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

Watt, Henry A.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Radford, G. H.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Weir, James Galloway

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro)

Whitbread, Howard

M'Callum, John M.

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

M'Crae, George

Redmond, William (Clare)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Rees, J. D.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

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

Rendall, Athelstan

Whitehead, Rowland

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

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

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

M'Micking, Major G.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wiles, Thomas

Maddison, Frederick

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Mallet, Charles E.

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradf'rd

Williamson, A.

Marnham, F. J.

Robinson, S.

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

Masterman, C. F. G.

Roche, John (Galway, East)

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

Meagher, Michael

Roe, Sir Thomas

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Menzies, Walter

Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

Micklem, Nathaniel

Rose, Charles Day

Winfrey, R.

Middlebrook, William

Rowlands, J.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Mond, A.

Runciman, Walter

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

Montagu, E S.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Montgomery, H. G.

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Baring, Capt, Hn. G (Winchester)

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

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

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. Hugh O.

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn Sir H.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E

Balcarres, Lord

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Wore)

Baldwin, Stanley

Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

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

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Banbury, Sir Frenerick George

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M

Courthope, G. Loyd

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Carlile, E. Hildred

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

596

597

Craik, Sir Henry

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Starkey, John R.

Doughty, Sir George

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Magnus, Sir Philip

Thornton, Percy M.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Fell, Arthur

Morpeth, Viscount

Warde, Col. G E. (Kent, Mid)

Fletcher, J. S.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

Gibbs, J. A. (Bristol, West)

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

Glover, Thomas

Percy, Karl

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Guinness, Walter Edward

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Hamilton, Marquess of

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Younger, George

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Heaton, John Henniker

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

Hill, Sir Clement

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Hunt, Rowland

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Seddon, J.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Third Resolution read a second time.

SUPPLY [16TH MARCH] REPORT.
Resolution reported:
SUPPLY [16TH MARCH] REPORT.

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1908–9.
  (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
  "That a sum, not exceeding £21,805,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909, viz.:—

  CIVIL SERVICES.

  CLASS II.

  £

  Board of Agriculture and Fisheries

  65,000

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

  Post Office

  6,500,000

  CIVIL SERVICES.

  CLASS II.

  Ireland:—

  Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction

  95,000

  CLASS I.

  Royal Palaces

  20,000

  Osborne

  5,000

  Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

  52,000

  Houses of Parliament Buildings

  18,000

  Salisbury Memorial

  1,000

  Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

  30,000

  Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

  25,000

  Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

  40,000

  598

  £

  Revenue Buildings

  250,000

  Public Buildings, Great Britain

  230,000

  Surveys of the United Kingdom

  90,000

  Harbours under the Board of Trade

  20,000

  Peterhead Harbour

  10,000

  Rates on Government Property

  300,000

  Public Works and Buildings Ireland

  95,000

  Railways, Ireland

  30,000

  CLASS II.

  United Kingdom and England:—

  House of Lords Offices

  10,000

  House of Commons Offices

  20,000

  Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  40,000

  Home Office

  75,000

  Foreign Office

  24,000

  Colonial Office

  25,000

  Privy Council Office

  5,000

  Board of Trade

  100,000

  Mercantile Marine Services

  25,000

  Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

  3

  Charity Commission

  15,000

  Civil Service Commission

  17,000

  Exchequer and Audit Department

  25,000

  Friendly Societies Registry

  3,000

  Local Government Board

  85,000

  Lunacy Commission

  5,000

  Mint (including Coinage)

  5

  National Debt Office

  6,000

  Public Record Office

  10,000

  Public Works Loan Commission

  1,200

  Registrar General's Office

  15,000

  Stationery and Printing

  330,000

  599

  £

  Woods, Forests, &c, Office of

  8,000

  Works and Public Buildings, Office of

  36,000

  Secret Service

  40,000

  Scotland—

  Secretary for Scotland, Office of

  25,000

  Fishery Board

  7,000

  Lunacy Commission

  2,500

  Registrar General's Office

  1,500

  Local Government Board

  5,000

  Ireland—

  Lord Lieutenant's Household

  2,000

  Chief Secretary's Offices and Subordinate Departments

  10,000

  Charitable Donations and Bequests Office

  1,000

  Local Government Board

  30,000

  Public Record Office

  2,000

  Public Works Office

  16,000

  Registrar General's Office

  5,000

  Valuation and Boundary Survey

  7,000

  CLASS III.

  United Kingdom and England—

  Law Charges

  30,000

  Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

  28,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature

  150,000

  Land Registry

  16,000

  Public Trustee

  1,000

  County Courts

  2

  Police, England and Wales

  15,000

  Prisons, England and the Colonies

  320,000

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britian

  130,000

  Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  15,000

  Scotland—

  Law Charges and Courts of Law

  30,000

  Register House, Edinburgh

  15,000

  Crofters Commission

  2,000

  Prisons

  35,000

  Ireland—

  Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

  25,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature, and other Legal Departments

  43,000

  Land Commission

  110,000

  County Court Officers, &c.

  40,000

  600

  £

  Dublin Metropolitan Police

  60,000

  Royal Irish Constabulary

  615,000

  Prisons

  50,000.

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools

  55,000

  Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  4,000

  CLASS IV.

  United Kingdom and England—

  Board of Education

  7,000,000

  British Museum

  60,000

  National Gallery

  17,000

  National Portrait Gallery

  3,000

  Wallace Collection

  3,000

  Scientific Investigations, &c

  28,000

  Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales

  75,000

  Scotland—

  Public Education

  850,000

  National Galleries

  3,000

  Ireland—

  Public Education

  760,000

  Endowed Schools Commissioners

  400

  National Gallery

  2,000

  Queen's Colleges

  2,500

  CLASS V.

  Diplomatic and Consular Services

  250,000

  Colonial Services.

  350,000

  Telegraph Subsidies and Pacific Cable.

  25,000

  Cyprus (Grant in Aid)

  49,000

  CLASS VI.

  Superannuation and Retired Allowances

  300,000

  Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances

  1,150

  Hospitals and Charities, Ireland

  17,000

  Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Deficiencies

  —

  CLASS VII.

  Temporary Commissions

  25,000

  Miscellaneous Expenses

  4,740

  Repayments of the Local Loans Fund

  —

  Ireland Development Grant

  100,000

  601

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

  £

  Customs

  350,000

  Inland Revenus

  830,000

  Total for Civil Services and Revenue Departments

  £21,805,000"

  Resolution read a Second time.
  MR. DILLON (): I wish to move a reduction of £100 on this Vote for the purpose of drawing the attention of the House to a very serious state of things that has arisen in Ireland, owing to the intervention of the Treasury, which has brought the operations of the Congested Districts Board to an absolute standstill. I wish at the outset to explain that what the Treasury has done is that they have not refused or withheld from the Congested Districts Board the money necessary to continue the purchase of estates, but they have refused to give any additional funds to the Congested Districts Board, which are necessary for preparing the estates for sale. As a consequence of that refusal the Treasury have taken steps, if I am rightly informed, to direct the Congested Districts Board, or to bring pressure upon the Board, absolutely to cease the purchase of estates. The condition of things which has been caused by tins action on the part of the Treasury is grave in the extreme Before I proceed to explain in detail the actual situation which has now arisen in Ireland in consequence of this action, I feel bound to explain the procedure of the Board and the way in which this action on the part of the Treasury has brought that procedure to an absolute standstill. The Congested Districts Board, as many Members who were in Parliament before the last election know, was set up by two clauses in the Land Act of 1891. Those two clauses set up a body with practically a roving commission to see what could be done for those unfortunate districts in the South and West of Ireland. The powers given by those two clauses were vague in the extreme and exceedingly limited. The commission conferred upon this body was to endeavour to ameliorate the condition of this population, which was recognised by Parliament as being
  602
  disgraceful to the whole civilisation of the country. That Act has been made the subject of innumerable Amendments. I counted up the other day, and I think there have been no less than nine amending Acts. If this were the proper occasion to discuss the question in its larger issues and to deal with questions of legislation, I could unfold to the House a story of the history of the amending legislation of this Congested Districts Board, which would be a very striking illustration of the incapacity of this House to deal with Irish problems. But this is not the time to do that. We are now confined strictly to the question of administration. The Board at first applied itself to various experiments with a view to promoting various industries amongst those populations. It made various experiments and made a great many mistakes, and I am free to admit that it wasted a great deal of money on those experiments, but the Nationalist Party to which I belong said from the beginning that these experiments were, to say the least, of very little use, and that the true policy for the Board and the only policy which could bring a lasting and effective remedy for the terrible conditions which prevailed in the West of Ireland was the policy of enlarging the holdings of the people and improving the conditions of the tenure so that they might become a self-supporting population. These views which have been advocated both in this House and outside for many years were at last adopted by the Government of the day, and in 1899 the Board, by the purchase of the Dillon estate, commenced for the first time the policy of migration, enlargement of holdings, and the improvement of land—the only policy which, in my opinion, is calculated in any degree to improve the condition of these western populations. Therefore, I ask hon. Members to keep in mind when they hear the operations of the Board criticised, that this land policy of the Board has only been in operation from 1899. As regards the Congested Districts Board, I wish to say at the very outset that it has been bitterly criticised in many quarters. If I were disposed to-night to embark on a criticism of the Board I could make a very strong case

  603
  against them. They have made many mistakes and have wasted money on experiments, and in ray opinion have very often paid a great deal too much for land. In many ways I could criticise them, but when all the criticism is said and done, the fact remains, which I do not think can be challenged, that this Board is the only public body we have had in Ireland which has applied itself to this great problem—one of the most urgent and burning we have to deal with in that country—the problem of the condition of these western populations. It has left behind it in the districts in which its limited opportunities—owing to the insufficiency of the Acts and insufficiency of its funds—have enabled it to operate permanent works of improvement. It is a matter of notoriety that in these, I regret to say extremely limited districts, where it has been able to operate with more or less of a free hand, as in the case of the Dillon estate and others in that neighbourhood, centres of disturbance and outrage and trouble of every kind have become peaceful centres of industry and progress. However open the Board may be to criticism, and I am the last man to deny that it can be truthfully and severely criticised, we in Ireland have had too little of genuine work done for those unfortunate and neglected people to look a gift horse too closely in the mouth and to refuse the ameliorative operations of this Board until we have something better to put in its place. The case I hope to make to-night for unloosing the strings of the Treasury to a very limited extent is unanswerable. There is one recent criticism made of the Board to which I feel bound to advert for a moment, because a recent hon. Member of this House—a man of extreme brilliancy—has within the last two months actually written a whole volume devoted solely to a denunciation of this Congested Districts Board. The volume is full of charges against the Board. It is written by Mr. O'Donnell, I only refer to that for a moment, fearing that any man might be prejudiced against the Board by charges made against it. I take one of the charges. It is a charge in connection with the Dillon estate. In this charge it is said
  604
  that an offer of £11,000 was made for the demesne of the Dillon estate, with the sporting rights attached, and that that offer was refused in order that the land might be sold for £2,500 to a community of foreign nuns, and that therefore a loss of £8,000 was inflicted on the taxpayer in order to give a preference to the nuns. What are the facts? They are exceedingly simple. I mention this case in order to disarm prejudice against the Board. It is quite true that the Congested Districts Board was offered by a sporting tenant £11,000 for the demesne of the Dillon estate, together with the shooting rights over the estate and over two or three large plantations on the estate. The area of the demesne is 653 acres, including a great deal of agricultural land. The tenants on the estate resisted the reservation of the shooting rights and in that, I think, they were perfectly right. I had something to do with that agitation. It was hinted that the agitation was got up by the priests in the interest of these nuns. There is not a shadow of foundation in that. I advised the tenants not to consent to the reservation of the shooting rights. When the tenants refused to consent to that reservation the sporting tenant, of course, was no longer available. What happened? The Board then having this tumble-down mansion on their hands sold it to the Bishop of Elphin for this community of nuns with 150 acres of the demesne for the sum of £2,100, but they reserved the balance of the demesne, amounting to 450 acres, which they cut up and distributed among small tenants, thereby enlarging a great number of small holdings, and they realised out of the demesne £13,500 by the new arrangement, reserving to themselves the three large plantations which, under the other offer, would have been the sporting tenant's. Now the House has the facts of the case, showing how easy any false charge can be made against a body. I mention that to show how easy it is to trump up a charge which looks very bad and is calculated to prejudice opinion in this country against a board in Ireland, and to show how, when investigated, it may disappear altogether. It is easy to criticise this Board, but that is not what I have risen for to-night. What I want to say is that

  605
  this Board is the only body in Ireland at present with any machinery for dealing with such estates as the Dillon estate and others of that character, and that until some other body, or other machinery is set up by the wisdom of Parliament, and until we receive and consider the Report of the Dudley Commission, I think it is an act of political insanity to block and to stop the operations of this Board. I do not desire for myself, or for any member of the Party to which I belong, to say one word to-night to prejudice our freedom of action when the Report of the Dudley Commission comes forward. We wish to leave ourselves absolutely free to advocate any course which may seem good to us as regards the future treatment of these congested districts, but pending that Report it is only sound statesmanship that the operations of the present Board, which was set up by Parliament for the treatment of the congested districts, and is the only body competent to deal with these estates, should not be suspended, especially in view of the dangerous consequences which may result, thereby raising fresh obstacles in the way of the right hon. Gentleman when he comes to deal with the question later on and also in view of the promises which were made five years ago as to the Congested Districts Board and the treatment of these districts. One word as regards those promises. My hon. friends who sit around me will remember the debates which took place in 1903. We remember the promises which were made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover. I distinctly remember the promise made by him when the condition of the congested districts was pressed on his attention. In the two years which followed the debates of 1903, the right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to carry out the promise. He said that it was the intention of the Government to give up nibbling at this question, and to embark on a policy by buying up a large number of estates. And the right hon. Gentleman said this remarkable thing: That he regarded these small holdings in the West of Ireland as uneconomic—to used the technical expression then employed—and that they ought not to be sold to the people until they had been made economic.
  606
  That was a perfectly sound principle. What do we see in the wilds of Leitrim? Estates sold at an outrageous price, together with arrears, I say that the money of the State is most insecure under these conditions. The right hon. Member for Dover was perfectly right whether we look at it from the view of the future fate of these poor people, from the point of view of the future prosperity of the country, or from the point of view of those who represent the taxpayers of this country, who want security for the funds advanced for purchase of the estates. The right hon. Member for Dover said rightly that he was not going to lend this money in order to stereotype a condition of raggedness and rottenness. Therefore I am entitled to say that the speech delivered by the right hon. the Member for Dover on that occasion, and the whole course of the debates in 1903, raised in the minds of the Irish people and particularly those in the West of Ireland great hopes, and you cannot in this House raise great hopes amongst the people without contracting a deep moral obligation to see that they are not disappointed. If there is one thing more than another which this House ought to be ashamed of, it is that over and over again it has said to Ireland: "Be peaceable and everything will be done." But when Ireland is peaceable, nothing is done, and then follows from disappointment, outrage and violence. What is the procedure adopted by the Congested Districts Board ever since it commenced its policy of land settlement? The Board buys an estate and endeavours to put it in order and to improve its condition, partly by enlarging the holdings, partly by making roads, and partly by constructing a system of drainage. The holdings are made economic, at all events they are put into such a condition that people can make a living out of the land. Then the estate is charged with a small proportion of the expense of these improvements. That proportion up to the present time has been very small, spread over the whole estate. Here let me say what ought to be kept in mind by hon. Members, that in Ireland there is grazing land which might be used in bringing these holdings up to an economic standard at a minimum rent of £10. From my own observation I

  607
  have been convinced that there are thousands of holdings which, without any addition that might be taken from the grazing land, can be made more economic than they are by encouraging the people to drain their land. I know a large numer of people whose holdings have been vastly improved and who are becoming prosperous simply because, where the landlords have been bought out and after the main drainage has been executed, they have reclaimed the land with great industry. They are encouraged to do so, because they have the assurance for the first time in their history, given by the scheme of land purchase, that all the value given to the reclaimed land by their labour and industry will be their own instead of being appropriated by the landlord. I remember the time when these poor people went out on their holdings and reclaimed the land from bog or morass only to find that the rent was raised upon them by 10s. an acre. Now you can see hundreds of them working at the reclamation of their land. By encouragements of that kind incalculable good may be done all over Ireland. I have the figures here of a few estates. One estate cost £39,000 and after certain things had been done to it which gave it an enhanced value, was sold to the tenants at £40,200, although that enhanced value was paid for more by the tenants than by the Board. The Board expended £3,550 on improvements and a portion of that money was paid by the tenants themselves. Sometimes it takes two or three years to carry out these operations,-because of their complexity and difficulty. Then the Board charges a rent to the tenant, but has only to pay interest to the Land Commission and the balance is all spent on improvements. I have seen myself the changes which have been made when the rents are spent on improvements instead of the money being sent away to an absentee landlord. Take the case of the Dillon Estate, which was bought by the Board and kept in hand for four years. They spent £65,000 on improvements, and then sold it to the tenants at a reduction of 40 per cent. after the lapse of four years—all without the cost of a single penny to the Government. Some people say that that is rather hard on the tenants, but the
  608
  estate was purchased at fifteen years' purchase which could not be done now. While that is true what a difference it made on the Dillon Estate! The expenditure of £65,000 quite transformed the whole estate, on which for fifty or sixty years not £50 had been spent. Therefore the method adopted by the Congested Districts Board is to buy the estate, then execute these improvements and re-sell to the tenants, doing what they can by migration, by enlargement of the holdings and other means to put the tenants in a more economic condition and in a better position to make a living out of their land. One of the awful evils with which the country is threatened is that some of the tenants on these estates are being forced to buy direct from the landlord by the pressure of arrears. The most tragic feature of the situation is that those tenants who need most the intervention of the Congested Districts Board are the most defenceless and the most easily forced to buy their land direct from the landlord, without the intervention of the Congested Districts Board, and their condition of misery is increased. It is impossible for any Government body to undo the mischief that has been done in this way, because when proprietary rights are once set up in these small holdings it will be a matter of infinite complexity and great expense to put them right. As I have said, this is a matter of vital interest to the taxpayers of this country, because the operations of the Board are not only laying a foundation for a better condition of things to the people but for enhancing the security of the Treasury for all the money spent on land purchase in Ireland. I said just now that it is not by migration or enlarging holdings alone that this Board has done good work. I should like hon. Members to see for themselves the change that has been effected in certain parts of the country by drainage, by roads, and by other improvements which the Board has encouraged. I remember the right hon. Member for Dover saying that it appeared to him as if some ancient system of village land tenure had petrified in the west of Ireland and had left it undeveloped. No, that is not so. These are the people who were driven off the good lands of Ireland not so very long ago.

  609
  Within the last hundred years some hundreds of them wandered from Armagh and Monaghan down into the wilds of Mayo and Galway. They were driven off their good lands and settled on the bogs and morasses of Mayo and Galway like wild animals. There you have the real secret of cattle-driving. It was then not so much cattle-driving as man and woman driving. That is the modern result of the evil law which was forced upon our country by this House and by successive Governments, and therefore there is a greater moral obligation on the House to deal with it now. In the first place, I know many villages where there are no means of access to the farms. These people have settled down neglected in the wilderness and waste places and erected miserable hovels. At first they paid no rent. The landlord never troubled to see to their movements or to regulate their settlements or to make roads or approaches to their farms, but he followed them for the rent when their farms became valuable. I can show you villages to-day near where I live, where the poverty of the people is enormously increased by the fact that they cannot get to the public roads except by donkeys. The mere work of road-making alone is immeasurably important on some of these estates. I have heard people sneer at road-making, but if you live in the county of Mayo you will not sneer at it. I was shown a beautiful road on the De Freyne estate, and the man who showed it to me said that before it was made he had frequently seen people on their donkeys which were sunk to their bellies. How could agriculture be carried on under such circumstances? I know of villages in which murders have been committed in consequence of these unfortunate villagers only being able to approach a road by passing over the land of their neighbours, and there is no more futile subject of dispute than such a condition of affairs as that. The making of a road in one of these villages is an act which immensely, nay, immeasurably increases the value of the holding. Take a case which came under my notice, in which there are about 200 acres of rich deep bog on the estate, but it was absolutely valueless, because the people could not get near it, the ground all
  610
  round it being a swamp. There was no road and the only ways with which the people could get to it was by almost un-passable paths across fields and ditches. Now the Board have run a road up to the bog and the people are making more money out of it by turf cutting than they are out of their holdings, and as they cut the turf, they can reclaim the land. It is only when you live among these people that you understand the many ways in which by improvements the Board can greatly add to their means of maintaining life, even where grazing land is not available. I would say to the House that you must remember that this Board has to deal with a population the most neglected in the United Kingdom, a population who have had none of the ordinary work done for them that is done for the tenants in every other part of the United Kingdom. The landlords, or some of them in this country, and so far as I know, throughout Great Britain, do endeavour to help in some way to improve the tenancies in matters of public roads and in making the holdings habitable. That is not the case in Ireland, particularly in these poor districts, and this Board has to overtake the arrears of two centuries, so that I do not think the demands made upon it are excessive. I will read a short extract from one of the last Reports of the Board—
  "In our reports for the years 1904–5 and 1905–6, we stated that further funds were required to enable us to continue the purchase and improvement of estates on a satisfactory scale and the appointment on 20th July, 1906, of a Royal Commission to inquire into the operations of the Act dealing with congestion, the working of our Board and other matters connected with the relief of congestion, too, indirectly had the effect of partially suspending this branch of our work, as the consideration by Government of our application for increased funds was thereby postponed. The purchases we have agreed upon in each of the three past financial years show the great decrease which has taken place for the reasons stated, the figures being: Estates purchased in 1904–5, £649,544; 1905–6, £346,706; 1906–7, £108,861."
  Now, mark you, for the year 1904–5, after the passing of the Act of 1903, there was an immense increase in the operations of the Board, but the moment the extra charge has been put on the Treasury they commence a system of intimidation or letter-writing to the Board, ordering them in effect to stop operations, with the result that whereas

  611
  it was £649,000 in 1904–5 last year it came down to £108,000. The Report goes on to state, after saying that a further sum of money would be needed if they were to make reasonable progress—
  "The delay in the recovery of the proceedings of re-sale of the older estates above referred to had the effect of considerably reducing the sum available in the past year for the improvement of estates, and only £76,000 could be expended, out of the £108,000 estimated for the year. The receipt of the proceeds of resale of these estates in the current year will, however, enable us to provide £100,000 for improvements, postponing to a future year the expenditure of about £40,000 required to complete the preparation of 115 estates for sale to the tenants, and we can at present make no provision for the improvement of twenty-two other estates more recently purchased."
  That, I think, is an extraordinary condition of things and what renders it still more extraordinary is that the necessity for further funds was brought up in two previous Reports. I take that for 1905–6—
  Having regard to the loss which must be incurred in effecting any radical improvement in the poor tenanted properties we purchase, our present funds, after providing for the loss on estates arranged to be purchased, would not in the future enable us to meet the loss that would be inevitable to the preparation for sale of more than £140,000 worth of property in each year. The limitation of the Board's operations to the annual purchase of estates of the value of not more than £140,000 will prolong indefinitely relief of congestion and will probably effectually frustrate it. The Board would find in such a limitation a most injurious restriction on their usefulness."
  This Report that I have just read was signed by Mr. James Bryce, the then Governor of Ireland. Sir Antony Macdonnell, and by Mr. Arthur James Balfour the present Leader of the Opposition. And the last Report which also called for extra funds was signed by Mr. Augustine Birrell, Sir Antony Macdonnell and Mr. Arthur James Balfour. I ask was there ever such a system of governing a country in the civilised world? A reponsible governor, year after year, sends a Report saying it is absolutely necessary to have more funds to carry on this work of relieving the congestion, but although the responsible governors of Ireland and a recent Prime Minister sign that Report, somebody at the Treasury says: "No, we know more about the government of Ireland than the Government itself," and the Treasury
  612
  set aside these repeated recommendations. Not only that, not only do they say: "You shall not have the money," but they say: "You must stop your work on the estates with which you are already dealing." In the whole history of civilised government there is no such farce as that. We have been led to suppose that there is a Government and that it is responsible to this House, but here we have a document saying that these things are vital and then we learn from other sources that the Treasury intervenes and puts a veto on the action of the Government of Ireland itself, end says: "No, the Government will not find the money necessary for carrying on the work which must be done before the estates are sold." There is another feature of this matter, even, if possible, still more aggravating. I have said that the situation in the West of Ireland is very strained. So it is, but I think the good faith and honour of the Government is at stake in this matter, because at present there are seven estates, certainly a number of estates, which the landlords have consented to sell. The tenants are willing to buy, and the Congested Districts Board have agreed to buy, whereupon naturally the payment of rent has stopped, part of the bargain being that the arrears which were very heavy should be written off, and one year's rent added to the purchase money in lieu of them. The estates are here. They are the O'Donnel estate, the Knox estate, the Power (Cloonmore) estate, the Begley estate, the Blosse Lynch estate, the McDermott estate, all in County Mayo, and the Maberley estate in Roscommon. The Blosse Lynch estate is over 18,000 acres in extent, and is, as all these estates are, particularly suitable for the purposes of the Board. On the estates the landlords have agreed to sell, and the tenants to buy, an inspector of the Board has gone down on the demand of the landlords and tenants alike. But after sending down an inspector and agreeing to buy, the transaction is stopped. The sending down of an inspector was taken by the people as a pledge, but the Board sent down a circular saying: "We have no more funds, and we will not buy." The people were proceeded against by the

  613
  landlords, not only for the rent for the current year, but for all the arrears. Is it any wonder that we hear that cattle-drives are being organised, and the whole place is in trouble? Besides these particular estates there are several others offered to the Board, but they have not agreed to buy, and in these cases if they are not bought there will be a distinct breach of faith on the part of the Government. With what face can the Government send police to carry out collections of rent or evict these people? I say the Government is in honour bound to buy these properties, and as I hold, to buy others. As regards these seven at all events and others in the County of Kerry, of which my hon. friend will speak, they are bound in honour to buy, as they have taken action which is accepted by the people as a pledge that they will buy. It is impossible for the Government to take this attitude in dealing with the people of Ireland, that the Government is not one whole in this matter. The Government cannot go to the people of Ireland and say: "I, the Irish Secretary, would like to buy these estates, but the Treasury will not allow me to buy." The Government is a united whole, and they are responsible, as a Government, for the whole of the government of Ireland, and if they say this, the Irish people may say: "What amount of pressure do you require to be brought upon the Treasury." I take a neighbourhood well known to the right hon. Gentleman—the Maberley estate in the south of Ireland. In that parish there are about 5,000 acres of grazing land untenanted and waste land, and there are several hundreds of small holders on the borders of the lands. On the Maberley estate, one farmer has 830 acres held from year to year on the English system. He is only four years in possession, and has many farms elsewhere. There are 400 families in the parish, 300 of whom have little holdings of under £10 valuation, and there is this ranch of 830 acres at their very door, offered to the Government, covered by the cattle of a grazer, and yet the Government will not buy, and we do not know when the Government will be allowed to buy. Is that a condition for things that can continue? What
  614
  right have you to turn on these unfortunate people and blame them, after you have treated them in that way? You have allowed the express desires of the Government to be set aside by the Treasury. That is the situation, and I want to know what the Government propose to do. We are promised a Report from the Dudley Commission, and I gratefully acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman has undertaken in the King's Speech to introduce a Bill granting compulsory purchase to get these grazing lands. Would it not be a good beginning to take those that are offered to you? Might not this argument be used against the Government when they bring in their compulsory Bill—"Why did not you buy the land offered to you." Besides that, it is all very well to say we are going to have compulsory powers; but will the Lords pass it? We have had experience of that. We want to know what is going to be done now by action which is entirely within the competence of this House, and without having recourse to the House of Lords. Why not do it by administration pending legislation? Then you will be able to say that you are doing your best pending legislation. Therefore, what I would propose is that the Government should without delay bring in if necessary a supplementary estimate which would carry us on for three or four months—that is a very modest demand—until we see the Dudley Report and so know what the prospects are. Send over to the Congested Districts Board to buy these estates at once. Give the people an assurance that at least in the near future something will be done to relieve their condition. That would carry us over the present crisis at all events. Set free the hands of the Board and allow them to buy all the estates offered to them at a fair price. Then let the future take care of itself. I am told that the Board estimate that it would cost about £130,000 to buy all the estates now offered them and to do the necessary work. A portion of that £130,000 would be supplied by loan and a portion of it by the rents collected on the estates. But put it down at £100,000 necessary from the public grant. They have only

  615
  £11,000 or £12,000 of the permanent revenue available. Unless some additional money is granted within six weeks or two months, the Board will be obliged to dismiss the whole of its labourers, numbering now 3,000 men. That will cause considerable poverty and distress. Let us at least decide to give the Board a free hand to purchase, and avoid a very serious consequence, which I am afraid will otherwise follow. That is my suggestion. One word on the question of parish grants. These are given to encourage people to make improvements in their holdings and especially in their dwellings. The system was started four years ago and is a very creditable one. I think it was started while the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover was in power. It was started in a few districts, and has now spread over the country. These parish grants were given in this way. There are representative committees, iucluding clergymen of all denominations and public men of the parish. They consider applications for works of improvement in the way of building houses, putting down concrete floors in the houses in place of earthern floors, putting in larger windows, and adding rooms. I have never seen so great a transformation in the face of the country as these grants have brought about. I do not know of any system ever introduced into Ireland that produced more self-help than these parish grants. When the system was started most of the houses in the district I am speaking of had cattle and pigs in their houses. They have been cleared out. The houses have been greatly improved, and now one of the things the Irish Government is interesting itself in is a war against tuberculosis and consumption. What could be more beneficent than giving encouragement to these poor people? The earthern floors which were in a continual condition of dampness have, from the example set by the Board., in many districts been replaced by concrete floors and raised three inches above the surface of the earth, which has had the double effect of making the house dry and perfectly easily drained. These might appear to be rather silly points, but they are practical and have a great effect on the health of the people. One of the causes
  616
  of tuberculosis and its spread in the West of Ireland is the shocking ventilation of the houses, and the insertion of larger windows by these parish committees would have a very substantial effect in lessening the disease. Yet the Board have issued a statement that they are obliged to withdraw their parish committee grants this year in consequence of the action of the Treasury. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in this matter. I assure him the withdrawal of these grants will create the greatest possible discontent and dissatisfaction in Ireland. I appeal to him in face of the statements made in these Reports signed by the right hon. Gentleman himself, by Mr. Bryce, and by the Leader of the Opposition, that it would be a cruel thing that for the sake of £11,000 the British Treasury should intervene and stop these improvements which have undoubtedly been a most fruitful source of improvement in Ireland. These people have been content to live for a long time under conditions which were simply horrible and their places have been made the show places of misery to every executive Minister who came to Ireland. Every Chief Secretary is taken down round Belmullet to see the miserable conditions of these people. It is, they think, extraordinary for this Government to stop the work of the Board, which is the only body now operating in the West of Ireland on these great questions of making holdings economic and of improving the housing accommodation of the people. I might point out to hon. Members what is the condition of some of those holdings, and how absurd it is to apply relief without some authority which can take the estate as a whole. I have in my hands the particulars of an estate which has been sold to the Congested Districts Board within the last few months. It is in my own constituency. One of the holdings consists of 5 acres, 3 roods and 5 perches, the total valuation of which is £1 12s. 9d.; it is in seventy-three different divisions, a few of which exceed the value of 2d. a year and some are of the value of 1d. a year. That holds good of two other cases, where, in spite of a fair rent fixed, there are seventy-three divisions valued at from 6d. to 1d. There is another case of 8 acres, the

  617
  total value of which is £1 5s.; there are sixty divisions, of which twenty are valued at 6d. and several more at 1d. How can you deal with estates in that condition without having a board such as the Congested Districts Board? On these grounds I make a most earnest appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. His policy is to apply a radical remedy, applying it, as was understood and promised under the Act of 1903, not merely piecemeal, but on a generous scale in the congested districts of the West of Ireland. That was part of the policy of the Act of 1903. Specific improvements were made in regard to purchase and in the two years which followed the passing of the Act the purchases made by the Board led the people to believe that some attempt was going to be made to carry it out. What are the Irish people to think if on the accession of the Liberal Party to office this work is to be stopped and that they then come down to this House and ask us to pass—as I trust and hope we shall pass—a compulsory Bill, when at this moment they are in a position to provide twenty estates without compulsion, if only the Treasury did not block the way? I beg to move.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL ()in seconding the Amendment, said they who lived in the West of Ireland knew that the condition of the people there had not been overdrawn; on the contrary, it was impossible to overstate the condition of misery in which some of the people of the western districts were living. The Congested Districts Board was established in 1891, primarily to deal with these districts and to do something to lessen the misery and to brighten the homes of those who lived in them. For a number of years, it was true, those operations were limited to the fishing industry and other matters, and it was not until 1899 that the Board devoted a considerable share of its attention to the purchase of estates for the relief of the congested districts. He found in the answer to a Question which he had put to the Chief Secretary that day, an account of the work done in the way of purchase and improvement of estates before and after the passage of the Act of 1903. The amount of land purchased
  618
  before the passage of the Act was extremely small. In the whole of Ireland it was put at over half a million, and the improvements effected on the land thus purchased—improvements effected not from Government sources but with the rents paid by the tenants themselves—amounted to £181,000. This sum must have considerably improved the condition of the holdings comprised in the half million. But since 1903 it was true that some progress had been made. More estates had been purchased. They desired, however, that this question should be dealt with quickly and immediately. They felt that the progress was unhappily too slow, and they were anxious that there should be greater speed on the part of the Government in dealing with the subject. Since the passage of the Act of 1903 land had been purchased to the amount of about a million and a half, and he thought that over a quarter of a million had been expended in improvements. At the present moment there were large tracts of land which could be used for the purpose of relieving congestion. But he wished to deal not so much with congestion in the West as in the South-west of Ireland. The amount of land purchased in County Kerry before the Act of 1903 was only £3,893, and the amount spent on improvements was £161. After the passage of the Act £143,000 had been spent in the purchase of land, and under £20,000 had been spent on improving the land. Taking these figures before and after the passage of the Act, he would suggest to the Chief Secretary, when he explained the condition of things in Kerry, that these figures would be found entirely unsatisfactory, and he could not be surprised if in Kerry they were at present thoroughly dissatisfied with what the Congested District" Board or the Government or the Treasury had done for them. The congestion in Mayo had been described by the hon. Member for East Mayo, but the House might be satisfied that they could be engaged in no better work than that of doing something to ameliorate the condition of the people who had to live under circumstances such as his hon. friend had described. The conditions in Kerry might not be exactly as bad as in Mayo, but they were very nearly as bad. The estates

  619
  in that county about which they were most anxious at the present time were the Ventry estates, of which he would take one part, situate near the town in which he lived. There were ninety-five holdings on this particular town land, with a population of 473. The valuation of those ninety-five holdings reached the grand total of £69. Ninety-five families, numbering nearly 500 people, had to live in houses of a total valuation of less than £70; in other words, the valuation per head of the population content to live in these districts was under 3s. One could imagine the condition of the houses in which the people lived; one could imagine the annual budget of these families, and wonder how it was that they were able to keep body and soul together in such poverty. But those he mentioned were a tithe of the class of holdings scattered over the Ventry estates. Practically half County Kerry was congested, and the average valuation in the congested districts must be under 30s. per head. What was the class of house in which these people had to live? The Census of 1901, he was sorry to say, disclosed a condition of things which was not equalled even in Mayo. Despite all they had done in Kerry under the Labourers Acts—and they had done a great deal, in some cases taxing themselves at 1s. in the £, the maximum which the law allowed—the fact remained that his native county was the worst housed part of Ireland. Undoubtedly it was true that one of the great sources of tuberculosis in Ireland was the existence of insanitary, small, and miserable dwellings. Kerry had a population of only 170,000, for in the last fifty years the emigration from that county had been over 250,000, the best brain and muscle of the population going abroad to increase the wealth and produce of other nations. Anything that was done to remedy that condition of things would be a benefit to the country as a whole. Something should be done to stop this national loss caused by the emigration of the young men and women from Ireland. It had been said that in Kerry they had very little untenanted land for the relief of congestion, and that, therefore, the
  620
  Board had some excuse for not dealing with congestion in that county on the same large scale as in the west of Ireland. Congestion did exist and some effort should be made to relieve it. They could not relieve it as Mayo could, but there were other ways of relieving congestion besides the taking of the people in large batches and planting them on new virgin soil. They might not be so effective, but still they were very useful. In Denmark half the holdings were under 7 acres of land. Seven acres of the best land in Ireland would be considered an uneconomic holding. It would be asked how it was that in Denmark men were able to live, he would not say luxuriously, but still in decent homes, with fairly comfortable surroundings and with enough to live on, and were not able to do it in Ireland. There were many reasons for that. By means of better systems of agriculture which could be imported only by such a board as the Congested Districts Board coming in and taking a deep interest in the people and showing that they were anxious to improve them, land could be drained, fenced and improved, roads could be made, fisheries could be assisted and various other things could be done, which would have the effect of improving the conditions under which these small holders lived; and if they did not make them as well off as the tenant of Mayo, who could get twenty to twenty-five acres of land, they would certainly wonderfully improve their condition. He now came to the estate of which he wished more particularly to speak—the Ventry estate. It was a very large estate with a rental somewhere between £20,000 and £30,000 per annum. It was situated in the district that he had described with very small holdings, bad houses, and everything else of that class. Ever since the passage of the Act of 1903 he had done everything in his power to induce the landlord to sell that estate to the Congested Districts Board, and for years it was absolutely useless. He was refused point blank until finally on some consideration—he did not know what it was—the landlord said he would I sell. The tenants were delighted. They thought that at last the way was open

  621
  for improving their condition and brightening their lot. Satisfactory agreements were entered into between landlord and tenant. The landlord said he was satisfied to leave the price to be fixed by the Board itself, and as to the question of arrears, which were very large, he should say averaging about five years and in many cases going up to fifteen, with the small tenants he actually accepted half a year and with the larger tenants he accepted a year in full discharge. Those were the terms which were sent up last August to the Congested Districts Board. In the following November they received this letter in reply—
  "SIR—I am directed by the Congested Districts Board to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of Kith inst., and to state that at their last meeting they authorised the opening of negotiations with Lord Ventry for the purchase of his estate, but they are not yet in a position to say whether they will be able to come to terms."
  —terms, of course, being the price arranged between landlord and tenant—
  "Some time must necessarily elapse before a decision is arrived at, as the case has only just been taken up."
  The tenants on the receipt of that letter came to the conclusion that he thought the House would come to, that there seemed at that time to be no barrier to the completion of the sale except possibly that the Board and the landlord might not agree as to the price. They heard nothing further as to whether the Board would buy until 15th January, six months after the bargain was finally completed between the landlord and the tenants, when they received a letter informing them that, owing to insufficiency of funds, they were unable to proceed with the purchase of the estate. The House could imagine the dismay with which this was received by the tenants! He had some responsibility in the matter and he claimed some credit for having been able to bring about the agreement, but when all that was completed and landlord and tenants were satisfied as to the price to be paid, it looked extremely strange that persons should step in and be the cause, as undoubtedly in this case they would be the cause, of trouble and confusion in the district, and that the sole persons to bring it about were the
  622
  Government Department in Dublin Castle. This was a position of things to which he would ask the serious attention of the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman had received a series of letters and resolutions on the subject and would admit that there existed in this district a very serious condition of things, and that it would be to his interest, and to the interest of all who were anxious for the peace of the country, to see that something was done to complete the negotiations that had been entered into. The landlord had done his part, and he had no blame whatever for the landlord or for his agent, who had met them satisfactorily. He was only sorry that the landlord would be compelled to adopt a course for the collection of his rents which would be very unsatisfactory to him and to the tenants. What was the position of the tenants? They were poor, wretched, miserable tenants of small holdings. They thought last August they had finally parted with landlordism as such and that a new era was opening for them, that their holdings would be improved, drained and fenced, that work would be given them which would keep some of them at home from the emigrant ship, and that their houses would be improved. Instead of that they got as a New Year's gift from a Liberal Government the statement that it was all up, that they were to go back to the old condition of things and to continue paying the old impossible rent. The tenants had said they would never again pay a penny to the landlord, and the landlord naturally was compelled to resort to extremes in order to collect his rent. What was the condition of things that would be created a fortnight hence, when the decrees were granted? The district was now peaceable and quiet and wanted to be quiet. The right hon. Gentleman could not find money for the purchase of the estate, but he would have to find money to drag in battalions of police in order to execute these decrees, and it would be hopeless and ruinous to both tenants and landlord. That was a condition of things which he certainly did not like to face and which he should like to see remedied. To show how the Board did its work, they got a letter on 15th January returning the

  623
  maps and papers of the estate. Would it be believed that the agent himself had told him that three days before he had had a letter from the Board asking him to send up the maps and papers of another estate? Lest it might be said that this was the first opportunity the Board had had of purchasing land in Kerry, and that their refusal was solely due to the action of the Treasury, he would read an extract from the Report of the Commission recently held, in which the agent, Mr. McClure, stated that in 1904 he sent up an estate to the Congested Districts Board. He got an engineer to draw maps and everything else and sent them up. He waited for months and months and sent several letters to inquire whether the estate was suitable or not. He got the usual form of acknowledgment, and after about twelve months delay got a simple letter saying: "We cannot purchase this estate," and that was all he got. Mr. McClure appeared before the Commission and stated that owing to the way in which the Congested Districts Board had for years treated him, he would be very slow in future before he offered them an estate again. He was afraid now, after the way in which the Board had treated the Ventry estate, it would be extremely difficult for them in the future to get either landlord or agent to offer any estate to the Board. He would appeal to the Chief Secretary to consider the position in which they and other tenants similarly situated would be placed if the Treasury insisted on withholding the money necessary to carry out the work. Nobody suggested that the House or any party in the House should tie itself down as to what they would do when the Report of the Commission came up for consideration. Until it came before them and until the legislation framed on it was passed, and that might be a very long time, it was the bounden duty of the Chief Secretary, both in the interests of the people for whom the Board was originated and in the interests of the peace of the district concerned, to insist that the Treasury should not block the way, but that money should be granted for the purchase and improvement of estates.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out '£21,805,000,'and insert' £21,804,900'"—(Mr. Dillon)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed—
  "That '£21,805,000' stand part of the said Resolution."
  MR. JOHN REDMOND (): I will not trouble the House for more than a very few moments, because I think that the case which has been put by both my hon. friends has made the question sufficiently clear to the minds of hon. Members. There are one or two points I wish to emphasise. Of course, this discussion is limited to one-particular point. We do not know what the future of the Congested Districts Board will be, and no one will know until the Report of the Commission is published what their recommendations will be for the future. As far as we are concerned we have an open mind upon the whole question until we see those recommendations, and until we have had an opportunity of fully discussing them. We are not pre-judging any question which may arise as to the continuation of the Congested Districts Board and its powers and resources. We are only now concerned with this narrow point. Until some change is made and fresh legislation proposed we say that it is an absolutely idiotic policy for the Government not to allow the machine to go on working. I am sure that, in this matter, we shall have the sympathy of many hon. Members above the gangway, and I am sorry the late Prime Minister has gone, because he originally instituted the Congested Districts Board, and I am sure his sympathies would be with us. What we ask is that this machine which has been carrying on its beneficent work in Ireland should not be rudely brought to a stop pending any alteration in its constitution or powers. All we ask is that provision should be made to enable this Board and the Government to carry out their solemn engagements in the immediate future. My hon. friend who opened the debate spoke of eight estates, and the hon. Member who followed him spoke of an additional one. I do not think that

  625
  that exhausts the list. The Congested Districts Board have entered into engagements with both landlords and tenants on a number of estates for purchase, and now by the action of the Treasury they are prevented from carrying out those engagements, and the immediate result will be disaster to the peace and tranquillity of those parts of the country. I am not one of those who pay much attention at all to the claim put forward by successive Chief Secretaries that the Treasury is entirely to blame. The Treasury has to obey the Cabinet, and, therefore, it is the Government as a whole that is to blame in the matter, and I cannot conceive that if the Chief Secretary went to the Cabinet, explained the circumstances, and insisted upon the Treasury providing the necessary money his demand would be refused. It is only a temporary proposal we are making, and a comparatively small amount of money would be required to tide over the interval between now and the consideration of the larger question in the Report. I would urge upon the Chief Secretary that, after all, it is in his power to have this thing settled. The right hon. Gentleman is in the position of insisting that he shall be given the means of preserving the peace and tranquillity of this district, and if he cares to take that attitude no Cabinet would be able to resist his demand. I have in my hand some correspondence from which I wish to read a few extracts, because it affords an instance of another estate which has not been mentioned at all, and shows the extraordinary injustice and confusion that has arisen in Ireland. This correspondence has been sent to me by the solicitors of the landlord concerned, so that I am giving the case from the landlord's point of view and not from the point of view of the tenant. It relates to the Digby estate in the County of Galway. I will give the name of the solicitors if required, but I may mention that they are an eminent Dublin firm. Here is the letter of theirs, dated 22nd February this year, written to the Secretary of the Congested Districts Board—
  "Dear Sir.—On the 6th of January last, we wrote to you informing you that Mr. Digby would have to make arrangements for re-letting of the grazing lands and asking you whether
  626
  your Board intended to have the estate inspected as promised or not. You acknowledged the receipt of our letter and said it would be considered by the Board. Under these circumstances we advised Mr. Digby to wait until we heard what the Board's decision was. We had a visit from him to-day, and he says that he will either have to let the lands lie derelict or lot them for eleven months grazing from the 1st prox, and we told him we would write to you and ask you to let us know by Tuesday morning whether he was to make the letting or not. He has gone down to-day to arrange about the letting and is returning on Wednesday morning. We do not think that your Board have treated Mr. Digby very fairly having regard to the following facts: Mr. Digby offered this estate to the Estates Commissioners, and the papers were before them when he received a letter from you some months ago asking if he was willing to sell the estate to the Congested Districts Board. We brought the matter before the Estates Commissioners and they stated they thought Mr. Digby had better deal with your Board as there would be less delay. On the 1st October we sent you the maps and papers and a copy of the letter of the Estates Commissioners, and we asked you if your Board were in a position to make an offer for the estate, as our client was naturally anxious not to lose his priority with the Estates Commissioners if your Board were unable to deal with the estate. On the 4th October, we received a letter from you sending us forms to be filled up which you asked us to return as soon as possible, and you added, the Board will then have the whole of the estate inspected. We spent several days in filling up these forms and we sent them to you filled up in every particular except the price asked, and a couple of days afterwards we called on you and filled in the price, and you then informed us that the papers had been sent to the Chief Inspector who would make an appointment at an early date for the inspection of the estate. Since then we have written you several letters which you said you would bring before your Board, but we have received no answer to these letters save formal acknowledgment. Mr. Digby informed his tenants early in October that he had offered the estate to your Board and that they were sending down to inspect it. Now if he proceeds to let the land for grazing his tenants will think that he has not told them the truth as they would naturally think it inconceivable that your Board having undertaken early in October to inspect the estate should have done nothing in reference to the matter up to the end of February. There will, therefore, probably be considerable ill-will in reference to the letting"."
  On 24th February the Secretary to the Congested Districts Board wrote—
  "With reference to previous correspondence and your letter of 22nd inst., I am directed by the Congested Districts Board to state that pending action of the Government on the Report of the Royal Commission on Congestion, and owing to want of funds for improvement purposes the Board are not at

  627
  present in a position to proceed with the purchase of above estate."
  On 26th February the solicitors wrote—
  "Mr. Digby has called on us and informed us that he read Mr. O'Brien's letter to the tenants and thus satisfied them of his good faith, and that in order to facilitate matters they fixed a price for the purchase of the tenanted land, viz., twenty years of the present rents of the holdings and for the untenanted land such price as your Board or the Estates Commissioners should fix. They also agreed to his letting the untenanted lands for grazing pending completion of the sale."
  So far as the landlord and the tenant were concerned they are both willing to carry out the arrangement entered into with the Congested Districts Board, but that Board wrote back to say that it was impossible for them owing to want of money for improvements to go on with the purchase, and they wind up by saying this remarkable thing on 27th February—
  "The Board regret that owing to the want of funds for improvement works they have had to postpone the consideration of about ninety estates offered to them which they were most anxious to proceed with."
  My hon. friend the Member for East Mayo used an argument which I fancy will be heard of a good deal in the future. He asks with what face can the Government come here and ask for compulsory powers, on the ground that it is impossible to purchase without compulsory powers, when here you have the Congested Districts Board stating that there are ninety estates offered without compulsion which they are anxious to buy, and which they cannot buy, because the Treasury has stopped the funds. The position is absurd. I am not asking the right hon. Gentleman or the Government to provide money for the purchase of all these ninety estates. We are making a much more limited demand, namely, that at any rate the Congested Districts Board should be immediately put in a position to deal with those estates which have not only been offered to them, but which they have actually agreed to buy, in regard to which the landlord and tenant have agreed as to the price, where the farms have been inspected, and where everything has been arranged. We are only asking that in those cases the Government should see that the undertaking given is carried out. If the Government persist in allowing this breach of faith with the landlords
  628
  on the one hand, and the tenants on the other, no one can have any wonder if the result is serious trouble upon those estates. These poor tenants have been looking forward so long to the ending of their relations with the landlord, they thought that at last they had almost achieved their object, and in many cases they had actually agreed to very high prices for the purpose of ending the existing relations between landlord and tenant. Those tenants are now to be told that by the action of the Treasury those agreements are to be broken, and they are to go back to the old condition of things. On the Ventry Estate the landlord has behaved very well, and no one can blame him if he tries to recover his rents. It would be hard to blame the landlord in circumstances like that, but will it not be equally difficult to blame the tenants if they resent this breaking up of agreements, enter into combinations, say that they will not tolerate it, and stand out and refuse to pay any rent at all? You will have on these eight or ten estates where agreements have been made and where they are now going to be openly violated, open war before you know where you are. Therefore I ask the Government and every hon. Member in this House, who is anxious to see legislation in the future on the lines of the Report which we hope to receive before Easter, whether it is not certain that if this state of things is precipitated it will render the chance of passing such legislation almost impossible. My hon. friend the Member for East Mayo pointed out that the money which has been stopped is required for the improvement of the estates, and not for their purchase. The Treasury, of course, have no power to forbid the Congested Districts Board from purchasing. All they can do is to refuse to provide them with money for improvements, and certainly, in my opinion, the Congested Districts Board are bound in honour and in duty, whether the Treasury acts in this unwise manner with reference to money for improvements or whether they do not, to go on and fulfil their undertakings and complete the purchase of those estates which they have agreed to purchase. That will not settle the matter, of course, but

  629
  at any rate, so far as the Congested Districts Board are concerned, they are bound, I think, in honour to take that course. Among his many offices in Ireland the right hon. Gentleman is, I think, President of the Congested Districts Board.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover will correct me if I am wrong when I state I that am not technically president. I am an ex officio member of the Board and whenever I am present I preside.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman had some doubt as to his real position, and that he has had to appeal to the experience of his predecessor, because I suppose that even yet the right hon. Gentleman has not quite grasped all the positions which he is supposed to occupy in Ireland. At any rate, he is a member of the Congested Districts Board, and whenever he is present, he presides, and therefore he may be taken as in a large degree responsible for that Board. I say that, first of all, its duty is to put this matter before the Treasury in such a way as will make it impossible for the Treasury to refuse the moderate demand that has been made. Apart from the Treasury altogether I say that the duty and obligation lies upon the Congested Districts Board, whether the Treasury does its duty or not, to go on and complete those purchases. Under these circumstances I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us a satisfactory answer. There is the greatest possible anxiety in Ireland and upon these benches, because we are all anxious that we should not be driven into turmoil, disorder, and trouble on those estates, and yet I see no means of avoiding it unless the Board fulfil their obligations and the Treasury give them the means of doing it.
  MR. BIRRELL: I wish the House were better filled in order that the vastness of the task of relieving congestion in Ireland might be fully realised by hon. Members. It is right that the question should be in the most striking manner
  630
  brought before the notice of the House. I have already expressed my own opinion upon the size of the transaction and its cost. I think we are all agreed upon its importance. At the same time it should, I think, be remembered that the Congested Districts Board no doubt has been entrusted with powers and duties which, if they discharged them to their full extent, would involve enormous income and expenditure. That income they have never had. It was small to start with, and it has been increased from time to time by different statutes, and at last under the Act of 1903, their statutory income reached the sum of £86,250. They have that statutory income, and, as the hon. Member for East Mayo pointed out, they have powers of borrowing from the Board of Works upon the enhanced value of their holdings, which materially increases their income, but these are the only sources from which they have ever been able to derive funds, not sufficient, or anything like sufficient, to deal with the whole problem of congestion or the relief of congestion. But they have dealt with it as well as they could. They have been in existence now for some fourteen or fifteen years and the result of their labours has been that they have purchased holdings or agreed to purchase holdings in those districts to the extent of 14,536 and it is calculated that there are 84,958 holdings within their territories. Consequently they have not been able really to deal with one-sixth of the problem during the years they have been in office. It is only fair to say that of late they have had this extended income of £86,250. That is all they have got. I am told that the Treasury has suddenly come down and stopped the money which the Congested Districts Board were entitled to assume they would get. That is not the case. The Treasury has never put the Congested Districts Board on the Votes. It has been left entirely to deal with this enormous problem—far too vast for any board with such a limited income to deal with—on the £86,250 and the power of borrowing from the Board of Works on the enhanced value of the holdings in consequence of their improvements. Therefore, whatever else may be said against the Treasury, it cannot, at all events, be said that they

  631
  are stopping the work. This is an absolutely new demand which is made by the Congested Districts Board. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite that the Board have at different times indicated in their Reports that they have not got a sufficient income to enable them at all satisfactorily to grapple with the vast problem which has been entrusted to them. The hon. Member for West Kerry has referred to the things they must do—the improvement of estates, fencing, draining, making roads and the like, as well as fishing and other duties which they are supposed to do. But even confining themselves to land, which I agree with the hon. Member opposite is the main thing, and the making of these holdings as far as possible economic, they cannot be said to have had any very particular success in that direction, because I am afraid that even on the Dillon estate, which is their great achievement, the holdings are not what are generally considered economic, though no doubt they are a vast improvement on what they were before the estate was purchased and improved by the Board. That is a great achievement, but it cannot be said to have accomplished the great object of making the holdings economic. They are still much too small to deserve that title. I am not underrating the importance and the gravity of the present situation, but it is not fair to create the impression that the Treasury have stopped the source of supply which hitherto has flowed into the coffers of this Congested Districts Board; that is not the case. The fact of the matter is that the Congested Districts Board have lost sight of the fact that every acre of land brought before us at our meetings has to be improved. I do not wonder, speaking as a member of the Board, that we have run short of money. Though my connection with it has been very short, I quite recognise that my own withers in this matter are not entirely unwrung. It might have been better if on one or two occasions when I have been present I had been more ruthless in pointing out how impossible it was for the Congested Districts Board with this income to go on purchasing to the extent they have done in the past, without seeing their way to improving the estates in anything like a
  632
  reasonable time; but I quite feel that the atmosphere of Rutland Square, Dublin, is a little different from that of the Treasury. It is admitted that every acre of land they buy must some day be improved, and whether it can be improved, and this great work of relieving congestion carried on, really depends on the generosity, or the justice, of this House, whatever is the right name to apply to it, because it involves undoubtedly a very considerable increase unless this sort of thing is to drag on for sixty or seventy years, which is unthinkable. Unless it is to drag on that enormous amount of time, this House, at no very distant date, will have to make up its mind whether it is to continue this work of improving holdings, this work of teaching people how to carry on their holdings, discharging obligations of that kind of a most expensive character, or to leave it off'. This is a question which will shortly be raised before this House in the best way that it can be raised, namely, by a demand for a considerable increase—an enormous increase—of the funds to be appropriated either to this Congested Districts Board, or to a renovated Congested Districts Board, or to some other Board altogether. Therefore, I want the House to recognise that this Board has really for some time past come to the end of its resources. The reason why, at the end of last year, it was harder up than usual was that it was disappointed of a sum of £158,000 which it expected to receive from the resale of land. These sales became very difficult owing to the action of the people who had to sign the agreements. They were often away from England or Ireland, and, therefore, delays sometimes occurred. We were very short indeed at the end of the financial year, and we had to go to the Treasury to get a loan of £25,000 to enable us to make both ends meet, and we were rather more subject to their criticisms than usual. The Treasury, after all, has not the power to prevent us buying. We can buy these estates through the machinery of the Land Act, and we can pay the interest in the manner provided for by the Act; but I own that I had always felt that the question which pressed upon us was how far we were justified in going on purchasing estates when we knew perfectly well that we had already more than a million pounds worth of land upon our hands, and

  633
  we really had not the means of doing the necessary improvements. These necessary improvements are calculated at different amounts, and they will be considerable. Consequently I thought, and still think, that it is undesirable for the Board to be indifferent to the amount of land which it purchases. I thought it would be obliged to limit its purchases, and as the hon. Member for East Mayo pointed out in a passage which he read, that has been the course adopted. In 1904–5 the amount for estates purchased was £649,000, in 1905–6 it dropped to £346,000, and in 1906–7 it dropped to £108,861. I therefore say that the Congested Districts Board have realised for some time past that they should not go on buying estates which have been offered to them. The hon. Gentleman says that ninety estates have been offered them.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: These are the figures given by the Executive of the Board.
  MR. BIRRELL: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct in the figures. Probably ninety estates could be purchased now. The landlords are very anxious to sell, and the tenants are very eager that the Congested Districts Board should come in and purchase, but there is no use in telling us that we are a body that can do this by a stroke of the pen. Everybody besides the right hon. Member for Dover recognises that the quicker the land is sold the better it will be not only for the tenants but for the whole community; but it is no use in setting the Congested Districts Board, with its income of £86,200, and what it can borrow from the Board of Works, to do a gigantic work of this kind. The House of Commons must realise that this great work of relief which is being done by the Congested Districts Board is quite distinct from the ordinary purchase of estates by the Estates Commissioners. It is an excellent work, and difficulties have arisen in connection with the subject, particularly in connection with migration. There are two schools of thought in Ireland about the subject. Some people think that it is best, after all, to leave it to the Estates
  634
  Commissioners, that the tenants show an anxiety far beyond their resources and beyond the economic value of their land, and that the habit of spoonfeeding should be left off. Well, I do not take that view myself. I think that so far as the West of Ireland 8 concerned, it is altogether a mistaken view, and, moreover, that it would be a most violent retrogression from the steps already taken. What the House must realise is that operations of this kind besides their great cost are sometimes of a disappointing character. I do not wish to cast any blame on the Congested Districts Board because they do not at once buy these ninety or 100 estate which are now in the market; nor do I even blame the Treasury because it does not come at once to the relief of the Congested Districts Board with a supplementary estimate of £50,000, or £60,000 to enable them to go on until such time as this House makes up its mind what it is going to do in this matter. There are some ninety estates which the Congested Districts Board have contemplated buying. As a lawyer I cannot altogether agree that any contract for purchase has been entered into, or even that the estates have been thoroughly inspected, but I quite agree that when negotiations are opened up everything leads to the conclusion that a price will be fixed, and that the matter will be carried through. There is then great rejoicing, everybody is glad, and the Congested Districts Board is raised to a momentary popularity. But we have not done more than that, though that is quite enough in Ireland to impose an obligation on the Board to do all that it can to proceed with the purchase of these estates. I quite followed what the hon. Member for Kerry said about the Ventry estate in County Kerry. I admit that it was eminently au estate which it was desirable to purchase and proceed with the improvements. The owner has shown the utmost conciliation, and has dealt very generously with the arrears of the tenants. The Congested Districts Board can proceed with the purchase of that estate as speedily as possible, but having purchased it they will not be able, for a considerable time at all events, to proceed very far with its improvement. I quite recognise that

  635
  there is an obligation in regard to this estate which strikes me rather personally, for I think I was present at one of the meetings of the Congested Districts Board when the matter was discussed, and although I had some misgiving I was unable to resist the claim for the purchase of the estate. I did not then realise, I did not know, that we were going to be disappointed by not receiving anything like the large sum anticipated from the proceeds of the sale of land. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will understand that the Congested Districts Board have not abandoned the hope of being able to proceed with the purchase of those estates, although I am afraid the work of improving them will have to stand over for some considerable time. The Congested Districts Board have this great task before them, and for years past we have pressed upon the Treasury the importance of giving us a larger sum. I do not take the view which some people take, that Ministers occupy water-tight compartments, and I am not going to the Treasury to insist on their giving me the money which I think is absolutely essential for Ireland, and at the same time refuse to listen when the Treasury reminds me of the great obligations that are put upon them, and that they have not the amount of money they would like to have. I cannot resign oftener than once a week, or even threaten it. I have to make up my mind whether in the matter of higher education, of the salaries of teachers, of railway conditions, or of the Congested Districts Board, I am going really to insist manfully. [An HON. MEMBER on the Irish Benches: I insist upon them all] If I insisted upon them all, I would be in a position of despair. Quite seriously, upon this matter it is no use telling the Treasury that they must give the money irrespective of the condition of the Treasury. I quite agree that the Congested Districts Board will have to be supplied with a great deal more money than at present, and that the House will very soon have to make up its mind as to how that money is to be obtained. In the meantime we are all looking forward to the Report of Lord Dudley's Commission. I have some rough knowledge as to the lines on which that Report may proceed,
  636
  but I know enough of it to say that it will raise questions of great gravity and the utmost importance, and I hope the House will make up its mind and resolutely set itself to the task of considering what provision it has to make for the relief of congestion in the West of Ireland. When we get that Report, we shall be in a position to consider the best way of dealing with the interests of the West of Ireland. In the meantime all I can say is that I should be very well pleased if the Treasury were to place a Supplementary Estimate upon the Table in order that we might be supplied with larger funds to enable us to proceed with the purchase of sixty or seventy estates. I cannot altogether wonder, however, that the Treasury have a difficulty in this matter, having regard to the circumstance that never before have they agreed to augment the statutory income of the Board. We must have a Supplementary Estimate, but also, I imagine, a Bill, and I can hold out no hope of any such Supplementary Estimate appearing on the Paper. Therefore, for some time to come the Congested Districts Board will have to economise, and the result of that economy seems to involve the cessation of the grants to the parish committees. I know that these parish committees do a very excellent work in encouraging cleanliness and sanitary arrangements. I do not believe that any of them are on the job, but that all the parish committees are doing a good and useful work in sanitation. Unfortunately, when you have to cut down expenses you must often begin by reducing something to which you are particularly attached. I cannot promise, or hold out any hope, that we shall be in funds which will enable us to continue the grant of £11,000 which these parish committees receive at present. I am very sorry for it, because I think it will be a cessation of undoubtedly good and useful work, but we have not the money. The Board has an income and a large sum which it hopes to recover, and which it certainly will recover, from the re-sale of land. Here we have 1,377,480 acres of land on our hands, which have not yet been re-sold, and we have spent £238,473 on improvements. We are ourselves,

  637
  therefore, somewhat congested, having regard to the smallness of our means; and though I am as fully alive as anyone to the value of the work which the Congested Districts Board have done, and although we have not the means of carrying on all these works at present, I hope to use all my influence with the Board, and all my energy to see that they do not drop the negotiations for the purchase of these estates where the negotiations have already been opened. That is all I can say, except that I trust the time will very soon some when the Congested Districts Board or some other body will be entrusted with sufficient funds to enable them to carry on this great work quickly and usefully, so as to make some impression within the next ten or fifteen years.
  MR. WALTER LONG (): I do not desire to occupy the attention of the House more than a few moments, but I wish to add my testimony to the value of some of the work of the Congested Districts Board. I gather from what the Chief Secretary said, that when we have the Report of the Royal Commission in our hands we shall then have an opportunity, not only of discussing the action of the Congested Districts Board in regard to the development of estates and the improvement they are able to effect in connection with the economic holdings, but we shall also have what is even more important, the opportunity of discussing the whole position of the Board, and whether it may be possible and desirable after the experience of twenty years to make some readjustment of the duties, so as to leave the Board more free to do the work which it was intended to do in the development of these estates. I cannot say that I altogether follow the Chief Secretary when he says it is impossible for any Minister to dissociate himself from his colleagues and the rest of the Government. He says that someone made that statement casually on this side of the House. As a matter of fact, it was a statement made repeatedly by members of the Government who have denied responsibility for the action of their colleagues and indeed taken a line directly opposite to that of their colleagues. I am glad to know they have
  638
  returned to the older and bettor ways, and I congratulate the Chief Secretary on his return to virtue. I regret that that return to better ways is accompanied by an amount of depression which I think has rarely been equalled on the Treasury Bench. Really, the right hon. Gentleman's views to-day about himself are so pessimistic that I am bound to offer him some good cheer and say that if this awful fate is to descend upon him of which he told us to-day, although we think he is in error, we cannot allow him to write his own epitaph in the language which he has used to-day, but we shall ask leave to write it ourselves. Subject to the views of party we hope that the right hon. Gentleman will long be spared to adorn the position which he now occupies and that he has no grounds for these melancholy forebodings. With regard to the actual work of the Congested Districts Board, I feel that it is impossible for any Chief Secretary to ignore its importance and value. In the second place, I think it would be a mistaken policy to try and prevent the Board carrying out purchases which are not only absolutely desirable, but are possibly offered on terms which may never occur again. I always found the Treasury most ready to listen to any suggestion put before them. The Treasury did say from time to time that the Congested Districts Board ought to regularise themselves and their procedure more than they had done, in the first place, by anticipating the work they were likely to do in greater completeness, and by taking the Treasury into their confidence rather more in advance than they do now. I had, of course, a very short experience of the Congested Districts Board. I was in office only a year, and present at only about half-a-dozen meetings of the Congested Districts Board, but it was apparent to me that the Board would be wise to enter into some arrangement with the Treasury whereby their commitments might be considered in advance and a more complete programme put before the Treasury. It is not for me to say whether or not the right hon. Gentleman ought to have succeeded in getting more money, but speaking on behalf of those on this side of the House I am free to say I do not believe any money could be better or more usefully spent

  639
  in the real interests of Ireland than that which is spent by the Congested Districts Board. I have visited many of their estates and I have seen how completely the face of the land has been altered by making roads, draining and dealing with flooding, and a variety of things which have made profitable cultivation of the lands possible, and opened up a new future for the people who live on them. Therefore, I believe that every section of opinion in Ireland would say that, badly as money may be wanted for other industries or for application in other directions, this is the most urgent as well as one of the most beneficial ways in which money can be spent at the present time. Therefore I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he will have the support and concurrence of those sitting on this side of the House in any efforts he makes for strengthening the hands of the Congested Districts Board. Before I sit down I should like to say that I think it would be most unfair and unjust, however important this work of the Congested Districts Board may be, that anything should be done to put back the transfer of land from owner to occupier in the ordinary course which was the primary object of all the Irish land legislation which has passed through this House. I cannot help thinking there is some overlapping between the Estate Commission and the Congested Districts Board, but I do not think you would be wise to hand over the duties connected with the development, charitable work as it is in its commencement, from the Congested Districts Board to the Estate Commissioners. I think it is necessary to have a body like the Congested Districts Board to do this work which, although it is part of the scheme of land purchase and land development, is in reality a totally different work from that of the Estate Commissioners. I believe if you are really going to make the congested part of Ireland anything approaching prosperous, if you are going to give the people an opportunity of developing themselves, making themselves more prosperous, you must have some body for sonic years to come which will direct that work and initiate a great deal of it. Of course the work of the Congested Districts Board is open to criticism—what is not
  640
  open to criticism after twenty years work? But in the face of the extraordinary difficulty, and without any light to guide them, they have made but few mistakes, and in regard to this development of land they have very little to regret and a great deal to be proud of, and if it is possible for the Treasury to find a little more money, I do not think they could find it for a better purpose, or one on which public money could be better spent.
  MR. ANNAN BRYCE ()trusted that the Secretary to the Treasury and the First Lord of the Treasury would listen to the appeal which had been made to them, because there was no doubt that if an opportunity of doing something for the Congested Districts Board was passed over now a great many evils would show themselves in an aggravated form. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had told them that the great danger was that chances might be lost in regard to the purchase of estates in Ireland, and thus a great opportunity of carrying out a comprehensive scheme might be allowed to pass. During the months which must elapse before any legislation could be carried, there would be a great many estates in the market, the purchase of which must ultimately be a matter of extreme importance to any person who had a comprehensive scheme in his mind. Therefore, it would be a great pity if the chance of purchasing these estates was lost by any niggardliness at the present moment. Another point was that the administration of the Board necessarily must be uneconomical when it was hampered for the want of the necessary funds to carry on its work. The administration as a matter of fact must be wasteful, for the Board would have in hand a large amount of land which it was incapable of treating properly by the full employment of its staff. He urged the Chief Secretary to make one more attempt to get from the Treasury a grant on a liberal scale, so that the work of the County District Board might be carried on.
  MR. HAYDEN ()said the speeches to which they had listened on all sides of the House showed that the question which they had raised evoked

  641
  no party controversy whatever. He heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin with considerable satisfaction, because he said what his hon. friends had been saying—that of all the questions in Ireland which demanded the attention of the Chief Secretary and the expenditure of public money there was none more pressing, urgent, and important than the settlement of the Western Province. Since his appointment the Chief Secretary had made several speeches of a sympathetic and courageous character in the House. Some of them had helped to make the right hon. Gentleman's way so far as it was possible an easy one, but the speech to which they had just listened was one which, though not lacking in sympathy showed a want of courage in dealing with a matter which had been described by all parties as most urgent and important. The speech would be received in the West of Ireland especially with grave disappointment. A question deeply affecting the lives of all the people in those districts—affecting their several conditions and affecting the preservation of the law and of the peace—had been brought before the House in a convincing manner. The case was admitted by all sides, and yet the Chief Secretary would do nothing more than hold up his hands in despair and say the Treasury could do nothing. It was hard to blame Irish Members of Parliament, and it was hard to blame poor peasants in the West of Ireland, if they lost patience over such a question, the importance and the urgency of which was admitted on all sides, not merely that night but for many years past. During the past winter, and indeed up to the opening of this session of Parliament, there was a considerable amount—though not so much as was made to appear in the British Press—of illegality committed in the western portion of Ireland in connection with the distribution of or the attempt to distribute the grazing land amongst the people. What was it that slackened that disorder, that illegality, or whatever it might be called? It was the promise made by the Chief Secretary in the first speech he made this session that during the present session of Parliament a Bill would be introduced and pressed forward by him for the settlement of the question.
  642
  What chance had that Bill of passing? After the case made out to-day, there was not the smallest chance that the promise made by the Chief Secretary in the beginning of the session could be fulfilled, or if fulfilled by the passage of the Act, that it would be carried into effect by the Treasury. The effect of the speech they had heard that evening would be to bring despair to the hearts of the people and to make them feel that they must again take the law into their own hands. When that was done then the purse-strings of the Treasury would be opened, because pressure would come from the proper quarter. In the early part of this session they lad Supplementary Estimates for thousands of pounds in connection with prosecutions and extra policing in the West of Ireland. The ratepayers in those poor districts, where already the rates had reached an almost impossible point, had been threatened with the cost of extra police, and the taxpayers of the three countries were saddled with extra taxes for policing and the carrying on of prosecutions in various parts of Ireland, all arising out of this subject. When the Chief Secretary and his law officers went to the Treasury and asked them to give thousands of pounds in respect of extra police, and prosecutions for disorder arising out of the failure of the Government to put the law into force in favour of these people, then the Treasury willingly opened their purse-strings and ladled out thousands to punish people for violating the law. They asked the Chief Secretary or the Government as a whole to consider the means of preventing a violation of the law. They asked that a grave problem, the seriousness of which was admitted by Chief Secretary after Chief Secretary, and by all parties in the House, should receive consideration, having regard to the force of argument brought in favour of it and not as a result of illegal pressure, to which the people might be forced to resort. If the Chief Secretary could do nothing better than tell them that seven or eight estates in respect of which the Congested Districts Board had practically entered into a contract would be purchased, and that all other purchases would be suspended until the report of the Commission and the passage

  643
  of an Act of Parliament following upon it—if that was all the Chief Secretary was able to tell them, he could assure him that the western problem would certainly engage his attention during the next few months in a manner which it had not done since he assumed his present office. That was not meant as a threat. It was a plain statement of fact which he was sure the Chief Secretary did not take as a threat. No one who had been brought into contact with the government of Ireland would take it as anything more than a plain statement of fact. Let Members from Ireland do what they would, trouble would and must arise in connection with this matter. The Chief Secretary had made a very remarkable statement that afternoon, and the same statement was made by the right hon. Member for South Dublin almost in the same words. That statement was that when sitting at a meeting of the Congested Districts Board in Dublin it was almost impossible when the question of purchase came up for consideration to resist the temptation to go on with the purchase. That statement might also explain the position which Nationalist Members occupied, and the words they spoke sometimes which some hon. Gentlemen taunted them with as being threats. They were brought into contact with this question, not by sitting in a Board room in Dublin, but in the bogs and fields and the poor cottages in the West of Ireland, where the people were looking forward with hope to Parliament. They knew that the one thing that kept the people within the law at all was the hope which Nationalist Members from time to time felt justified in holding out to them that Parliament would do something for them, They knew that ninety landlords had offered their estates to the Congested Districts Board, and they had been informed that nothing could be done because there was no money. Money could be found for almost everything except the pacification of the people of Ireland. Any amount could be found to prosecute them, but none could be found to bring peace and contentment to their homes. Millions could be found for wars in various portions of the world, and even for the suppression of the people of Ireland,
  644
  but the statutory limit could not be exceeded when it was a question of arriving at a final settlement of the most urgent problem that could be faced by the government of Ireland or any other country. The Nationalist Party appealed to the Chief Secretary not finally to close the door with the promise that he would do his best to see that the contracts entered into by the Congested Districts Board with regard to these seven or eight estates should be carried out, but that he would go further. They asked him to go to the Treasury and insist that money should be advanced unstintedly if necessary, for the purpose of settling with as many of these estates as it was possible for the Congested Districts Board to get through. The work of improvement must be slower than the work of purchase, but if the right hon. Gentleman had met the people in the way the Nationalist Members had, he would find that the moment an estate passed from the landlord to the Congested Districts Board, the people were prepared to wait for a considerable time for the work of improvement to be carried out, because they knew that once an estate passed into the hands of the public authority it was dedicated to their use for ever, and that, the landlord having passed away from them, it would only be a few months or a year before they entered into their holding, with a chance of making a good living in the future. In his own county there was a considerable amount of untenanted land which had been purchased by the Congested Districts Board. Some of it had been in the hands of the Board for years. Before that land was purchased there was the gravest discontent and grave danger of disorder in connection with it. The people naturally desired that the moment the land was purchased it should be divided amongst them, but they had not quarrelled with the decision of the Congested Districts Board to keep it in its hands for some time until other land was added to it for the purposes of a scheme of a large character. Wherever land had been purchased by the Board, whether the tenanted land had passed into the ownership of the tenants, or had remained in the hands of the Congested Districts! Board, trouble of all sorts had ceased.

  645
  They could promise—such remarks were not held out as a threat; they would be absolutely ignorant men if they held any such language—that all danger of disorder would disappear from any district where the Congested Districts Board could buy the laud, even if it were not divided and the work of improvement immediately carried out. Reference had been made to the Maberley estate. Part of the parish in which it was situated was scheduled as congested. Though that state of things there had existed ever since the Board came into existence, not one single thing had been done, not one penny had been spent by the Board in that parish, the condition of which urgently called for action. Very large rents had been offered to the Board. The grazier and the landlord were willing to sell, and the tenants were almost clamouring to purchase, yet the land was refused because the money could not be obtained. He scarcely thought it necessary to assure the right hon. Gentleman that in Ireland he could not devote himself to any work which was of such importance, or so urgent and necessary for the peace, prosperity, and settlement of the people, as that now brought under his notice. He would again urge upon him to go to the Treasury, or rather to the Cabinet, and impress upon that body that he could not be responsible for the peace, order, and tranquillity of the country unless he was able to treat it not merely in accordance with his own wishes but in accordance with what he had come to know were the character and wants of the congested districts. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not be content with the promise he had made, but would go very much further, and loosen the purse strings of the Treasury in regard to the ninety other estates which were offered. If he did that, he would make his own task easier as well as that of the Attorney-General for Ireland. At the same time the right hon. Gentleman would further his own work of passing through that House the amending Bill which he had promised later on. All these things together would help to bring peace to the people of the districts, and excite hope for the future. All he asked the right hon. Gentleman to say was that the good work of the parish
  646
  committees would be carried on, and not stopped, or even suspended During the existence of the Royal Commission for almost two years witnesses were called from all parts of the country, and not one spoke against the work of the parish committees; on the contrary, everyone, landlord and tenant, grazier, Nationalist or Tory, spoke in the highest terms of the beneficial and economical character of the work carried out by those bodies. An awful responsibility would be incurred by whoever stopped the progress of the work. The danger to the health of the people alone should be sufficient warrant for spending far more money than the few thousands of pounds expended in connection with these parish committees. He appealed to the Government to keep this work in progress, so that the people might feel chat something was being done, without any undue pressure from themselves, and that they might look with some hope to the future.
  *MR. GOOCH ()said he had heard with very great satisfaction the promise of the Chief Secretary that in the Bill he proposed to introduce when the Commission had reported he intended to ask the House to make a substantial addition to the income of the Congested Districts Board. On the other hand, he was very disappointed to hear the Chief Secretary say that he did not think it would be possible for him to obtain an interim contribution for that Board. It seemed to him very improbable that the Bill would be able to get through until nearly Christmas, and it was by no means certain that it would get through at all. In any case any relief which the Board could look forward to under that Bill would probably not be available until a year had elapsed. Therefore, it seemed to him that the Chief Secretary ought if possible to make a renewed effort to get out of the administrative difficulties, and obtain the comparatively small sum of money necessary, not to start new work, but to prevent the lapse of the old. He would have thought from the experience of last year that the Appropriation Act would have given him the instrument by which he could carry out the obvious device of the House. He only intervened in the debate for a

  647
  moment because he happened to be one of the very few Members on that side of the House who knew the West of Ireland well, who had seen the successful operations of the Board, and who knew its officials—very excellent officials they were. There was no work of any Department in Ireland which was better worth helping than that of the Congested Districts Board, and none which gave a better return for the money invested. If he might be permitted to say so, there was a certain unreality about such a debate unless Members of that House knew the particular part of the country now under discussion. Anyone who had ever been in the West of Ireland, and seen the condition in which the people lived, the degradation and almost starvation, and the tuberculosis which arose in consequence, had with him a vision from which he could not escape. The Congested Districts Board was the only authority in Ireland which had no enemy. It had a certain number of critics, but it was the one Board in the country which obtained the enthusiastic approval and confidence of all parties. They owed a debt of thanks to the Leader of the Opposition for having founded it. They had heard that afternoon that the land operations of the Board were of very great importance. Money put in the land farmed by the Congested Districts Board was much safer than the money put into an estate by the Estate Commissioners, and handed over without any improvement at all to the buyer, in other words, handed to a man who had no capital to improve the land. Money given to the Congested Districts Board to buy land, and the land having been bought and improved until such time as the whole character and atmosphere of that estate had been changed from a condition of despair to a condition of prosperity and hopefulness, was as good an investment of British money as any that could be found. He should especially regret the lapse of the work of the parish committees. It had been his good fortune to see their work not only on the Dillon estate, but in several other parts of the congested districts of the West of Ireland, and he was bound to say that he agreed that the money spent by these committees went further than most money spent by
  648
  the Government. Instead of paying the whole expenses of necessary repairs, necessary housing reform, and increased accommodation, all they did was to give a comparatively small stimulus to local effort. When he was in those parts of Ireland he was immensely struck with the extraordinary results of a £5 note received from the village committee. First of all, money was given, and then a number of the people around lent their services free of charge to convert an insanitary hovel into a place where a family could live in comfort, with a shed attached where cattle could be turned in. He urged the Chief Secretary either by the Appropriation Act or by some other financial expedient to help the work of these committees, and to see that at any rate part of the expectation which had been raised as to the work of the Congested Districts Boards was not disappointed.
  MR. BARBIE ()said they were all aware that a Commission had been sitting for almost two years, but they were not likely to have its Report before them in a manner which would allow them to deal effectively with it, at any rate during the current session, and for that reason, if it were possible for Unionists from Ireland still more to support that portion of the claim that had been made from the Notionalist benches they would desire to do so. They rejoiced to recall that this important Board was called into being by a Unionist Government, and while the Unionist Party were in power they did not hesitate to endow it with ample funds to perform the important work it was called upon to do. It was notable that it was only when a Radical Government had come into power that this policy of cheeseparing and whittling down its income had been adopted. It was necessary to recall to the House that this cheeseparing was quite in keeping with the whole manner in which the Government was at present administering the Land Act of 1903. Last year there was something over £13,500,000 worth of land for sale in Ireland. Another year had passed and the Government did not provide more than £5,000,000, with this result, that taking

  649
  into account estates that had been purchased but not yet settled for by the Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commissioners, there was at present almost £30,000,000 worth of land waiting to be paid for by the Government. He was sorry to have to say that it was becoming increasingly plain that the policy of the present Government was only part of a larger policy to strangle and hang up voluntary land purchase in Ireland. There were 100,000 tenant farmers who had purchased their farms, some of them so far back as four years, and who were waiting very patiently indeed considering the circumstances in the hope that the Government would provide the means of placing them on the land as occupying owners. He was sorry that this state of affairs should exist. He was not going to attempt to emulate the violent language used by the last speaker below the gangway. An hon. Member who informed a Minister that if his demand was not complied with the people would take the law into their own hands used a distinct and unmistakable threat. Then the hon. Member went on to say again that if the problem was not dealt with it would assume an importance it had not assumed before the right hon. Gentleman took office. He hoped the Chief Secretary would not be intimidated by such language. He was happy to acknowledge that it was in startling contrast to the statements made by the three Nationalist Members who had previously addressed the House. He had every desire to associate himself with most of what had fallen from them in approval of the work of the Congested Districts Board, and he regretted that there was so much work for such a Board to do in Ireland. Unionist Members from Ireland did not happen to have included in any of their constituencies any congested districts, but that he hoped did not make them the less sympathetic with the needs of such districts, and they regretted that so much needed to be done for them. He respectfully urged that sufficient funds might be in some way or other found for continuing the necessary allowances to these parish committees. They were doing the most excellent work. He was happy to think that as regarded the great problem of tuberculosis a much
  650
  healthier and more hopeful spirit prevailed in Ireland, and in so far as sanitary improvements and improving the dwellings of the people was concerned they would be only too pleased to associate themselves with the request that at least in this lesser degree the demand which had been made to the Chief Secretary might be conceded. He had only to add that they were not out of sympathy with the demand that had been made, but they were anxious, in whatever further grants were made in this connection, that the legitimate demands of the tenant purchasers who had made voluntary arrangements with their landlords should not have their claims further delayed, or be unreasonably dealt with as they undoubtedly at present were by the Government.
  MR. HUGH LAW ()said it would be evident to everybody who had followed the debate that it formed a most curious and ironical commentary upon the pretensions of that House to deal with Ireland in such a way as to do everything which Ireland could do, if she were free to do it, for herself. In. every quarter of the House there had been complete unanimity. It was true that the last speaker had thought it necessary to challenge them about one or two phrases, but they could hardly have expected he would make a speech without doing that. Their demand was put forward in a very moderate fashion. It was supported from the benches opposite, and by the right hon. Member for South Dublin; there had been no note of dissent, and the Chief Secretary had agreed that the work, which they were only asking should not be stopped, was not only useful and desirable, but absolutely necessary—work which must be done sooner or later and which ought to be done sooner rather than later, if the very object itself was not to be entirely defeated. And yet in spite of that they were told nothing could be done. They had made three demands. They had asked, in the first place, that the work of the parish committees should not be suspended; secondly, that negotiations actually set on foot, and almost completed, for the sale of particular estates should not be

  651
  broken off; and thirdly, that the pledges to which that House stood committed to deal with the Western problem in a large spirit should be carried out. On all these three points all the Chief Secretary was in a position to say apparently was: "We will not stop the work. We will not go back upon what we have actually promised in the case of these six or seven estates." That certainly was a most curious commentary upon the government of Ireland by that House. With regard to the work of the parish committees about which there was absolute unanimity, could anybody suppose that if it were a matter of similar importance to Great Britain, work of that character could be stopped for a matter of some £11,000? Anything more calculated to make the people of Ireland bitter he could not imagine than such a spectacle as they had had that afternoon. The parish committee work had shown promise of being fruitful in a new direction. Quite recently the Gaelic League had made arrangements, he thought with a local doctor in Connemara, to visit the homes of the people to instruct them in the precautions to be taken against the spread of consumption, basing, as he understood, the whole of his treatment upon the system carried out by the parish committees. He did not know what the effect on a scheme of that kind would be of the withdrawal of these grants, but he was afraid it would be disastrous. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be encouraged by this debate to press the demands of Ireland and that he would not take it as hostile to himself. They all believed he was most anxious to do all he possibly could within the very limited powers he had to improve the condition of the country over whose government he presided. He hoped the result of the debate and of the unanimity that had been shown would be to en courage the right hon. Gentleman to bring further pressure to bear upon the Treasury to grant what was after all a very moderate demand, a demand simply for a small temporary grant to enable the good work of the Congested Districts Board to be carried on pending further legislation.
  MR. CARLILE ()said that no one who had visited the West of Ireland would be likely to rise in that debate with other than a truly sympathetic feeling towards the work of the Congested Districts Board. He remembered visiting most of the congested districts in the West of Ireland, and he confessed that he found there a picture which did not agree with that which had been placed before the House by hon. Members below the gangway, who always pitched their descriptions in such a very sorrowful and mournful tone that one would suppose they were in a most distressful condition. That was not the result of his observations in Ireland. Casting back one's mind to 1879 and 1880 and contrasting the condition then and now obtaining, nothing could be more marked than the vast improvement which was largely the result of the excellent work of this Board. In the years 1879 and 1880 in the depth of winter he went from one little holding to another to see for himself what the real condition of the people was, with a view to getting them assistance in this country. That he was pleased to say he was able to obtain to the extent of some hundreds of pounds. Comparing the then condition of things with the present state of affairs the cottages were vastly improved, outbuildings had been added, and altogether there was a condition of things which was extremely satisfactory and most gratifying to the visitors who took the trouble to inspect the district. It was very gratifying to find that in every quarter of the House there was a desire to forward this good work. He regretted that the hon. Member for South Roscommon should have sounded a jarring note. He was the first to do so and it was a great pity, having so good a case which needed no action of that kind, that the hon. Member should have inserted in his speech what they felt on those benches constituted a definite and distinct threat to the Chief Secretary. The hon. Member had stated that whereas at present the people were disposed to be orderly and law abiding the condition of things would be very different if the right hon. Gentleman did not get this money apparently by hook

  653
  or by crook. That was a deliberate threat which he hoped would be absolutely ignored. The hon. Member had done a serious dis-service to his cause by the language he had used, although he felt sure that the general affect of the debate would be to express united sympathy with this work and a desire that it might go on. Reference had been made to the work of the parish committees. He had had plenty of opportunities of observing their work, and he had no hesitation in saying that that branch had been admirably, economically, and efficiently carried out. It must be satisfactory to hon. Members in every part of the House to know that the condition of things in that part of Ireland was improving. He trusted they would hear nothing about extortionate threats, because the work was too good to be assisted by such methods. They were all agreed that apparently the funds at the disposal of this Board were insufficient. Whatever those funds were more might be used for purposes of that kind. They always noticed that hon. Members below the Gangway came to the House more or loss in forma pauperis so far as money grants were concerned, and he was afraid they were getting rather hardened to that kind of thing. He hoped the work of the Congested Districts Board might go on with that careful attention to detail in all branches of its work. When the Royal Commission had finished its Report he hoped there might be further steps taken towards relieving what was undoubtedly a considerable amount of congestion and distress.
  MR. CONOR O'KELLY ()said he intervened in the discussion for one moment in order to ask one or two Question; of the Chief Secretary about which he had given him notice. He wished to know if one of the largest properties in the West, the Bloste property, was included in the fist of those fix or seven estates in connection with which negotiations for their purchase by the Congested Districts Be rd had to be abandoned. He would like to know when those negotiations were commenced and if there was any truth in the rumour that terms had been agreed to between the Board and the owner. If so, the
  654
  right hon. Gentleman might have no objection to state the terms agreed upon.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid he had telegraphed for the information, but he was not able to answer the Questions fully. The estate referred to by the hon. Member had been offered for sale to the Congested Districts Board, but it had not yet been inspected on behalf of the Board, and no price had been fixed. Whether it was one of those estates which came within what he said amounted to £700 or £800 he did not know. He did not really think the matter had gone quite so far, but it was most eminently desirable that that estate should be purchased, and he would do his best to see that the transaction was carried out.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG ()said he wished to ask the Chief Secretary, in carrying out some of the suggestions made to-day by his colleagues below the gangway, not to allow them to interfere in any way with a point which he knew was causing a considerable amount of discontent in certain parts of Ireland with regard to the allocation of money collected by the Chief Secretary's Department in order to pay the instalments on the land purchased under the last Act of 1903. A considerable amount of money was lying to the credit of the Chief Secretary's Department, which included the Congested Districts Board, which had been collected from the tenants on the various estates, and the money was not paid over to those to whom it should be paid until a long time afterwards. One of the great troubles existing at present in the way of getting land where it otherwise might be had arose in consequence of the way in which those who had already sold their land were being treated. He was sure it would astonish some hon. Members if they knew the way in which business was being carried out. After a large property was sold, perhaps on terms mutually agreeable to landlord and tenants, there intervened a sort of interregnum before the Government could produce sufficient money to pay, and during which the money was not paid over to the person who sold his land. Any scheme suggested for the alleviation of the congested

  655
  districts must carry with it the particular question of the interest payable pending the settlement with the landlords. He understood that the interest which they received meanwhile was nothing like the rate they could get if their money was invested in a good security. Not only was this preventing sales under voluntary schemes, but it was also the fact that the money collected by the Government from the tenantry on the various estates was not paid over to the landlord until practically the whole of the estate rents had been collected. There was practically £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 hanging-over the heads of the Government, and when they collected the money for the sales which were partially completed they waited until they got the money from the whole of the tenants before they paid it over to the landlord. This was a sort of niggardly dealing with what ought to be done in a fair and generous manner, and it was undoubtedly stopping many tales. It was not only a question of want of funds which the Government was unable to supply, but also a question of the way in which the machinery of the Board was being worked at Dublin Castle. If the machinery was worked in a proper spirit, and if proper treatment was meted out to those who would sell to the tenantry and to the Congested Districts Board, the Chief Secretary would have much less trouble in obtaining land for any scheme he had in view. When there was added to the difficulty of securing sufficient funds—and he did not see any chance of those funds being increased in the immediate future—the fact that the organisation at the present time in the office which dealt with this particular point was not kept up to a high state of efficiency, and that proper treatment had not been meted out to those who had already sold their land, he did not wonder that others were prevented from selling to the Congested Districts Board. He hoped the Chief Secretary would take into consideration the case which he had submitted, so that those who had already sold might not be penalised by having to wait four or five years for their money. If the money was not being illegally withheld, it seemed to business men in Ireland that the treatment given to those who had sold their property was most unjust.
  MR. DILLONsaid he could not state that he was satisfied with the result of the debate. The House was absolutely unanimous, but they were told that nothing could be done. But it would be absurd for him to press his Amendment for a reduction of the Vote to a division, and, therefore, he asked leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY ()said he desired to ask the Postmaster-General for some further information as to the way in which he was carrying out the recommendations of the Select Committee in regard to Post Office servants. When a discussion took place in the House some time ago the right hon. Gentleman went into a number of the points and promised to give further information about them. He himself and a good many others were very much disappointed at the delay in carrying out the recommendations of the Committee. He knew well that the right hon. Gentleman had a very laborious task in dealing with all the intricacies in connection with the various recommendations. Still a good many months had now elapsed since the Report had received the full study not only of the Postmaster-General, but of his advisers at the Post Office, and the delay was, he thought justly, causing a certain amount of irritation among some sections of the staff. He, therefore, hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give the House an assurance that the recommendations would be carried out at a very early date. Having said that, he must refer to his treatment of some of the classes in the Post Office to whom the recommendations applied. He would take the case of the engineers. Recently he addressed a question to the right hon. Gentleman with the view of ascertaining what progress had been made with respect to that body of officers. He regretted very much to find that the right hon. Gentleman had taken the words of the Select Committee as meaning that they did not intend that sub-engineers now serving in the Post Office should receive any benefit from the Committee's recommendations. He was perfectly satisfied

  657
  in his own mind—and he spoke for all his colleagues on the Committee—that it was the intention that these officers should receive substantial benefit, and that it should not be confined, as he understood the right hon. Gentleman proposed to confine it, to new entrants. He did not propose to trouble the House by reading the paragraph in the Report, but it was perfectly clear in his judgment that it was the intention of the Committee that the sub-engineers should forthwith benefit, and that the benefit should not be reserved for new entrants.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): I should like to know exactly from the hon. Member in what respect he thinks I am not carrying out the recommendations of the Committee. I have really not been able quite to seize the point.
  MR CLAUDE HAYsaid his Question to the right hon. Gentleman was—
  "Whether, in view of the fact that in his recent circular applying the recommendations of the Hobhouse Committee, the present officers of the sub-engineers class are not specifically mentioned, it is his intention that the Committee's recommendation in respect to these officers, namely, that after three years sub-engineers service, provided they are pronounced suitable and capable, they be promoted to second-class engineer-ships, is to be applied to existing sub-engineers."
  Clause 490 of the Committee's Report stated that the sub-engineers should form a probationary class pure and simple, and that the candidates who passed the examination qualifying for second-class engineerships should afterwards follow certain lines of work and pay. From the reply which the Postmaster-General gave to the Question on 3rd March, he understood that the right hon. Gentleman had taken the words of the paragraph to mean that the benefit arrangement proposed in the paragraph should apply only to new entrants. He believed he spoke the view of all his colleagues on the Committee when he said that it was never their intention that it should apply only to new entrants. They certainly never intended that the sub-engineers should be practically the only class who instead of benefiting would be losers. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that
  658
  representations had been made to him by that class setting forth their case, and even if for the sake of argument he admitted that his contention was not correct, he would suggest that they were a class of men whose case was deserving of special consideration. If, by any unfortunate wording of the Committee's Report, the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman was possible, he trusted that an assurance would be given to the House that their case would not be made any the worse on that account, but that these men would be put on all fours with the rest of the Post Office staff in respect of the recommendations. He would like to say a word also in regard to the position of overseers. This was a complicated question, and he did not intend to go into the details, but he had to express his profound disappointment at the interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman had given to the recommendation of the Committee. That disappointment was very greatly shared by these very efficient and trustworthy officers. On 22nd November last, the London Postal Superintending Officers' Association addressed the Postmaster-General, asking him for an elucidation of the recommendation contained in paragraphs 410 and 414 of the Select Committee's Report. The Secretary's letter contained the following—
  "Paragraph 414 recommends that the super vision of the London Postal Service should be arranged between superintendents, assistant superintendents, second class, and the extracts from the evidence contained in our memorandum were given to show that in our judgment the Select Committee intended this recommendation to carry with it the equalisation of the London and provincial supervising conditions.'
  The case was clearly put by a departmental officer of high position, namely, Mr. Bruce, the Controller, who when giving evidence for the department put in a return showing that the supervising force at a London office was greatly below that of the Manchester office. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman's application of the Report, so far, had not given satisfaction. He would respectfully suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should sympathetically consider the representations which had been made to him with the view of meeting the desires of the men on the lines recommended by the

  659
  Committee. He believed that he was correct in saying that the right hon. Gentleman had not given entire satisfaction, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not meet the views which had been put forward with great care in the various documents submitted to him. He earnestly asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the advisability of granting an interview to the men. So far they had not had any important information from the right hon. Gentleman as to the progress he was making in the treatment of the sub-postmasters, although he could not but think that that matter had engaged his close attention These thousands of postal servants should be put out of the misery caused by the uncertainty which now attached to their condition. He hoped that the recommendation of the Committee in regard to the sub-postmasters, which did not err on the side of generosity, would be carried out. All the evidence put before the Committee showed that the sub-postmasters and their clerks deserved the fullest consideration and the most generous treatment. In regard to the question of the sanitation and constructional arrangements of the various Post Offices throughout the country, to which he attached the highest possible importance, he asked how much money the right hon. Gentleman proposed to spend from this Vote on the works requisite to carry out the recommendations of the Committee in that regard. Many small works and repairs hitherto executed on these Post Office buildings by His Majesty's Board of Works had been transferred to the Postmaster-General's Department. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the House some information as to what progress he was making with that part of the Report which laid it down as a matter of the highest importance that the Board of Works should have nothing to do with the Postmaster-General, and that the Postmaster-General should be master in his own house. He was bound to say that on the last occasion when he had raised this question the Postmaster-General had not given him all the encouragement he should have liked. The right hon. Gentleman rather indicated that this was a matter which should be
  660
  proceeded with cautiously and slowly before he could get rid of the delays caused by the Office of Works. The right hon. Gentleman did not answer the question put to him in regard, to the chief medical officer of the Post Office. Was there in this Vote any amount taken for the increase of that officer's salary which they knew had been given to him? He was also anxious to ascertain whether that officer still held the appointment of medical officer to the Civil Service Stores and the Army and Navy Stores, or whether the right hon. Gentleman had acted on the view of the Committee that in their judgment it was highly improper that a chief officer of the Post Office should hold outside appointments which might make some inroad on his time. The evidence of the chief medical officer, on which the Committee made strong comments, showed that many of the evils in connection with the insanitation of Post Office buildings was due to the fact that the medical staff was insufficient for the work, and that Dr. Wilson had not time to make the necessary inspection. Lastly came the question as to the Treasury control of the Post Office Department. He thought that not only the Committee, but a great number of Members on both sides of the House were convinced that unless the Postmaster-General was master of his own accounts, unless he was able to run his own business, he would really never be able to serve the public efficiently. And what was more, he would never be able to handle the staff in a satisfactory manner. He was sure that the delays and expense caused by the meddlesomeness of the Treasury must make the life of the Postmaster-General and his officials almost unbearable. The Postmaster-General had to bargain and negotiate with and be more or less a serf of the Treasury. He remembered the last time the subject was discussed the occupants of the benches opposite were very sympathetic in their observations as to the relations which existed between the Treasury and the Post Office authorities and that they thought they should be reconsidered. From what the Committee had said in their Report and from what had fallen in debate from hon. Members in the House it had been shown that this was a matter

  661
  not only within the range of practical politics but within the immediate vision of the right hon. Gentleman; and he hoped that this year they would see much greater freedom given by the Treasury to the Postmaster-General. If that were so, he was convinced that not only would the right hon. Gentleman find his labours less arduous, but there would be greater content amongst the staff, and he would be able to make further arrangements for the convenience of the public.
  *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I will, in reply, take the matters referred to by the hon. Gentleman in the reverse order to that in which he stated them. As to the relations between the Treasury and the Post Office, that, of course, is a very delicate question, and I do not think it is one he will expect me to discuss on the present occasion. Everyone feels the grip of the fetters of the Treasury, and naturally the Postmaster-General would like to have greater freedom in dealing with various matters that arise. But, after all, the Treasury is the guardian of the public purse.
  MR. GEORGE FABER ()drew attention to the fact that forty Members were not present.
  House counted; and forty Members being found present—
  *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: So far as I recollect, when this question was discussed, when sitring on that side of the House I have never spoken or voted upon it. The next point referred to by the hon. Gentleman was as to the relations between the Board of Works and the Post Office. It is desirable, no doubt, that the Post Office should be practically placed in possession of a sum for repairs, but that is still a matter of consideration by the Treasury, the Board of Works, and the Post Office, and nothing has been definitely settled. As to the sanitation part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we have given the matter the greatest possible attention, and have received every assistance from the Board of Works. We have also had periodical meetings between our
  662
  officers and the officers of the Board of Works.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: That Committee was appointed when this Select Committee was sitting.
  *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The fact that the Committee's attention was drawn to the matter was very effective in having all the points considered. I do not think there is now any cause of complaint to be made in regard to sanitation. We are doing the best we can to improve the sanitation of all the Post Office buildings where improvement is required. With reference to the chief medical officer, his salary is on the Estimates. That gentleman wrote to me after the recommendation of the Committee was published, saying that he was about to Cease to be the paid officer of the two associations referred to by the hon. Member, and that he would then remain only the paid officer of the Post Office.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Do I understand that the £20,000 recommended in the Report has not been taken on these Estimates?
  *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: No, Sir; this matter is still under the consideration of the three Departments concerned. Then my hon. friend asks me with regard to another matter, the delay there has been in carrying out some of the recommendations contained in the Report of the Committee. I think he will recognise that it has been really a gigantic task of reorganisation which has been carried out by the Department and myself, and I can assure him that no delay has been incurred which could be avoided. Delay will not affect any existing officer, because he knows that if he has not yet been dealt with, any increase of salary or improvement of status will date back to 1st January, and that no advantage wall be lost to him by the delay. With the exception of a certain amount of classification I do not think, except in regard to the smaller (lasses, and in regard to sub-postmasters, that any questions are outstanding. Then there are two other points. One was as to the sub-engineers, but I confess

  663
  that, even after listening to what the hon. Member said, I still think the recommendations of the Committee applied to future entrants only. But I will look into the matter again. My desire has been to carry out to the full the recommendations of the Committee. As regards the London postal overseers, I do not quite grasp his point, as they get a considerable increase. They get an important minimum increase of £10, and their promotion is also improved in addition to their pay, and I do not think they come out badly under the recommendations of the Committee. As to the deputation, I was quite willing to see them if there were any points to be discussed, but the points appeared from the correspondence to dwindle down to those in regard to which they wanted no further information. As to the actual scale, I took the recommendations of the Committee to the fullest possible extent. As to the sub-postmasters, the hon. Member will recollect that the Committee gave additional time for the consideration of their case; the matter is extremely complicated and will take time. But as a matter of fact, it does not much matter, because the new scale dates from the new revision, so they are not prejudiced by the delay. A short time ago I had the honour of meeting a deputation of the sub-postmasters; I had a very long and satisfactory interview with them, and I hope before very long to be able to settle the questions which affect them on satisfactory terms. I think at the interview we were able to thresh the matter out and arrive, on the whole, at a satisfactory conclusion to both sides. These are the points which the hon. Gentleman has raised; I have not the least objection to his having done so, and I promise him I will look into the subject of the sub-engineers and if he can throw any further light upon it I shall be glad. As to the porters, there are about 10,000 still in suspense, and the matter of classification is being proceeded with. As soon as possible, I shall issue another classification, but that depends upon the results of the Board of Trade examinations and it must take some time. I do not desire to delay in any way, but again I say no one is prejudiced, because any advantages will date back to 1st
  664
  January and they will receive all the advantages due to their position.
  *MR. GUINNESS ()said that before the House left the Post Office Estimates he wished again to call the attention of the Postmaster-General to the matter of political organisations in the Post Office which was debated on last Monday evening. After that debate even that section of the Press which supported the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of having some further light thrown upon the matter. The Daily News of Tuesday said that the matter could not be left in the present position and it ought to be referred to again and satisfactorily cleared up. The drift of the right hon. Gentleman's argument had been that the rules of the Post Office forbade the formation of any association of Post Office servants which was part of a larger organisation, and he vetoed the proposed Post Office Habitation of the Primrose League, because they shared officers and shared an organisation which extended to the whole country. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman thought at the time of this decision that he was adopting a logical attitude, but he was probably not then aware of the peculiar case of the Fawcett Association, which was brought up in the House after he had made his statement. The Postmaster-General had not dealt with the fact that the Fawcett Association had sent representatives to the Labour Conference, which surely proved that they were not an independent body existing only within the Post Office, but were part of a larger and comprehensive labour organisation which embraced the whole country. The right hon. Gentleman defended himself from any charge of partiality, and he was sure they on that side of the House did not think he had taken the course of which they complained, with the idea of favouring any particular political organisation. There were so many organisations within the Post Office, and it was apparently so impossible for the Postmaster-General to be informed of the details of all their constitutions, that he urged that a change in the system was necessary. He thought that if the right hon. Gentleman adopted the course of putting, an end to all existing organisations in

  665
  the Post Office he would have the support of the House, because it would not fetter the individual liberty of Post Office servants to join any political organisation, existing independently of the Post Office. The other alternative was to allow equal rights to all organisations whatever they were, and to allow them all to form Post Office branches. He did not think anybody could possibly support the attitude of the Government in this matter, and he hoped that now the right hon. Gentleman had had time to think it over he would see that the present position was impossible, that the rules had not been carried out as he laid them down the other night, and that the position called for a change in one of the two directions he had mentioned.
  SIR F. BANBURY ()said he was sorry the Chief Secretary for Ireland had gone out of the House, because he would have liked to put one or two points to him in regard to a speech which was made from below the gangway, but he saw the Patronage Secretary there and no doubt he would be able to convey to the right hon. Gentleman the few remarks he wished to make upon those points. An hon. Member below the gangway had said that unless more money was given to the Congested Districts Board the people would know the reason why. There was some discussion as to whether that was a threat or not, but in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was rather given—he would not say to use threats, but to govern Ireland according to Irish ideas—he believed that was the correct phraseology—he must say that the speech of the hon. Gentleman filled him with alarm because he, as a British taxpayer, feared that further inroads would have to be made into his pockets, and he was one of the numerous band of poor people who were pledged to find £150,000,000 for Ireland, and he did not, however excellent the Congested Districts Board was, find himself very anxious to put his hand in his pocket to find more money for that country. An hon. Member had observed that it was like Oliver Twist, always in a state of asking for more, but, unlike Oliver Twist, it got what it asked for. He hoped the right
  666
  hon. Gentleman would convey to the Treasury a request from some Members of this House that they did not want to increase the grants to Ireland. They were voting £21,000,000, and there were present only two Members of the Government and one hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House, who was their supporter, and others who might be, but it was difficult to tell in these days. Either by the Rules of the House, or by tacit consent, at a quarter-past eight they were going to Vote this money in that condition of the House. With regard to the prevalence of glanders, the Board of Agriculture should take steps to stop the further spread of the disease. He complained of the discourtesy of the Government in having no one present to answer questions on the subject.

EIGHT HOURS WORKING DAY.
MR. CLYNES ()in moving—" That, in the opinion of this House, the time has arrived when, in the interests of the workers generally, and in view of the present large number of unemployed, the working day in all trades and industries should be limited by law to a maximum of eight hours," said the proposal embodied in the Resolution had the merit of being an old one. It had for many years received the almost unanimous support of the organised workers of the country. It had been discussed at scores of conferences and congresses, and was not a proposal which was kept before the public mind by the energy or activity of labour advocates. The Labour Party submitted it to the House as a serious and reasonable proposal connected with existing industrial and social conditions. He was not going to consider the extravagant fancies and stupid arguments against it, such as the arguments that at the stroke of the eighth hour the fireman would step attending to a fire, or the lifeboat man would stop going to sea. Such arguments were too ridiculous to waste the time of the House upon or to ask them to consider. The Labour Party would not oppose proper and reasonable regulations to make due provision for seasonal trades which

667
would safeguard any loss either of property or labour. In the course of the discussion no doubt arguments would be adduced as to the folly of interfering by legislation with adult labour. But the House for years had interfered with adult labour by legislation, and no such argument should be offered there. The House was the great repository of regulations for labour, and dealt daily with all manner of proposals to restrict, limit, and regulate various social and trading concerns of the nation. He was not sure that a shortening of the hours of that House itself would not be a good thing for the country. His experience of it led him to believe that the output would thereby improve both in quality and quantity. The President of the Board of Trade had recently said he would be glad to have the proposal applied to Cabinet Ministers. Bearing in mind the mischief some of them had done, there would be no objection on the part of the Labour Party to a considerable limitation of their hours of labour. The right hon. Gentleman some months previously had drawn a picture of the distressed condition of the workers in the slate quarries district in this country. He described the distress which prevailed, and told his audience that on account of their unemployment and low wages great suffering was entailed upon these men. He finished his picture by stating that two men who were employers of labour in the slate-quarry districts of Wales, received in profits from the labour of their men more than the men received altogether in the course of a year's work. These conditions had a very close relation to the question of the hours of labour, and he would later submit a, few facts to show how the results of the efforts of labour found their way too largely into the pockets of those who took no part in the industries and trades of the country. Between the work of the statesman and public servants and the work of the manual labourer there was a good deal of difference. Cabinet Ministers, for instance, would not like to have their services interrupted by any time limit, because there was a sense of Joy in their work, a sense of being of service to their country, which was a greater reward than any emolument attaching to their
668
office. Their activity did not arise from any sordid motive. So that great personal pleasure and comfort formed not a small part in the lives of men engaged in those higher branches of service, generally termed mental labour. They were the men who had holidays and variety in their work, but these conditions were entirely absent from the life of the ordinary industrial drudge who, however, was a necessity in the nation. For the greatest of men, the finest of orators, the best of public servants, no matter how full of ability that man might be, must come down for his comfort, and for his daily maintenance to the work of the manual labourer of the country. He put it to the House that the industrial workers ought not to be worked so long, paid such meagre wages, or treated so badly as they were to-day. The work of the manual labourer was an essential element of civilised society. When any proposal was made to alter the hours of labour they were usually met by the statement that such changes would be followed by the ruin of the concerns in which such alterations were made, and dejected widows and persons of that class were held up as being dependent on the maintenance of the present state of things for their existence. The whole of the prophecies made as regarded the ruin that would follow from the adoption of the proposal had been falsified by events. Many firms in the face of keen competition had adopted the eight-hours system with success. There were great trades and industries in this country worked on that principle. The principals of those trades had not waited for State regulations, but prompted either by public duty or the fact that they saw some advantage to be derived from their action they had established the eight-hour day without any of the evil consequences which it was said would follow it. The Government he was assured had something over forty thousand workers at present on the eight-hours system. That arrangement was more largely the result of administrative action than the outcome of legislation in that House. Some years ago when this change was contemplated it was considered that it would produce greater regularity of attendance, an improvement

669
in the physical condition of the workers, with a consequent increase in their powers of production. As the cost of production had not been increased in other cases, it was calculated it would not be increased in Government workshops. It had been stated by the War Office that these anticipations had been justified, that no extra cost had been incurred by the public, and that the output of work had not been diminished. He submitted that in view of this experience in the case of both Government servants and employees of private firms, they had successes which offered very substantial arguments in favour of a legislative eight-hours day for the country. The House was, he thought, prepared to approve of an eight-hours day by law for, at least, the miners. They were a class of workers for whom he claimed no special right to speak; still he thought it might be said that they had hitherto failed in their agitation and in their efforts to effect an arrangement between themselves and their employers. They had come to the conclusion that before their hours could be properly regulated and safely fixed, legislation would have to be the force to decide those conditions. As soon as the Bill promoted by the miners had reached a point when its passage appeared to be a certainty, a great agitation had been raised, and efforts were now being made to show that the passing of the Bill would be bad for the workers themselves. In short it was being said that if they lessened the hours of labour they would increase the price of the product, because the output would be diminished. But in the last three or four years there had been an annual increase in the output of coal to the amount of about 15,000,000 tons, yet the price had gone up. Now if they were told that a diminution of output due to the reduced hours of labour would bring about a consequent rise of price, how was it that there was an increase of price with an increase of output? He did not think that the House would be deterred, or that the country would be scared, by the alarmists who were now declaring that the regulation of the hours would mean an increase in the price of coal to the country. He was well aware that other reasons were given. It was
670
pointed out that the great demand on our coal by foreign countries had tended to run up the prices. It was rather remarkable in these days of inflated patriotism that the English householder and manufacturer should be made to pay more for his coal by the coalowner because foreigners wanted our coal. He must ask the House to remember the dangers and fears that were always pursuing the colliers in the course of their work. They had seen at Ham-stead an awful lesson of how the collier's life was being ever carried in his hands. At such a time they were all full of pity and sympathy for the miner. He asked the House, not only in behalf of the miners, but in behalf of other workers whose occupations were very dangerous, to put some substance into their sorrow by giving relief and lightening the burden which the working classes had to bear. He wanted to say one or two words in connection with the cotton trade. The cotton operatives of Lancashire and the adjacent counties some years ago decided by ballot in favour of an eight-hours day for their trade as well as others. Some years ago, when a ballot vote was taken, a majority of the Members declared in favour of an eight-hours working day. They said low—
"The matter is now coming to the front again. At the last International Congress of Textile Workers the Lancashire delegates voted in favour of the proposal. The great extension of the trade by the erection of new mills will surely bring the question more within the range of practical polities, as there is certain to be much short time working whenever a depression comes. By a unanimous vote, the Weavers' Amalgamation on Saturday passed a resolution expressing an opinion that the time was opportune for a reduction in the working hours in textile cotton factories, and requesting their central Committee to bring before the United Textile Factory Workers' Association a resolution in favour of a reduction of five hours each week. The question will again receive ample discussion when it comes before the members of the United Textile Factory Workers' Association, and if it receives the assent of the representative body, a determined effort may be made to bring the subject within the range of Parliamentary action."
It was presumed by those who had perhaps no experience of factory life that the Lancashire cotton operatives were generally speaking, very well off, both in point of money and labour. To those who had that view he would suggest that they should read the manifesto drawn up

671
and signed by the accredited representatives of the various branches of the textile dustry, and published by the officials of the textile trade during last year. By that manifesto they emphasised the increasing strenuousness and difficulty of the textile operatives' work—its growing dangers and the sweated conditions in which many of the textile workers found themselves. A classic instance of excessive hours and bad treatment was afforded to that House by the conditions and pay of the railway workers of the country. The House might remember that about this time last year they were asked to consider a Motion with regard to the long hours of railway servants. Many figures were given during that debate, and it was shown that 58,000 railway servants worked not eight, or ten, or twelve hours a day, but thirteen hours a day; 21,000 worked fourteen hours per day; 8,000 worked fifteen hours a day, and thousands worked up to even eighteen hours a day. It was sometimes said by way of explanation or excuse that there were exceptional causes for these hours—the season, the weather, or some unforeseen contingencies. But the Return which gave these figures related to the middle of the year, to the month of June, and it was shown during the debate that if the railway servant; were called upon, through some sudden emergency, some special reason, to work for exceptionally long hours, they would not be opposed to it. It had been said sometimes that the long hours were worked because the directors of the railway companies were not able to find men to fill the positions. That argument contrasted strangely with the common boast of railway directors that so popular was the railway service that it was always attracting thousands of men in excess of the number required, and that they had always at hand practically as many men as they wanted if all their employees were to cease work in the event of any serious trouble arising between them and the companies. In regard to the work of railway servants, he might mention that dangerous as was the work of miners it was shown by the figures based on accidents and deaths in connection with the work of railways that the employees in some grades of railway work were engaged in a service which
672
was really more dangerous than that of mining. There was another trade, a big trade, which he thought entirely escaped notice in connection with this question. It was a trade which was commanding a great deal of attention in the way of public discussion at the present moment. There were thousands of men and women employed in breweries and distilleries, hotels, public-houses, restaurants and so on, who were worked scandalously long hours; and he thought he could, with the approval of that House, say that if those who had control over that trade and its various branches were genuine in what they said in respect to the freedom and rights and interests of the working classes, they should set some better example than they were now doing in regard to the hours of labour of their servants, and their general treatment of them in point of pay and conditions. Then they had the building trade, to which the President of the Local Government Board had made special reference. In his speech at the gathering of the Associated Chambers of Commerce the other evening, the right hon. Gentleman enjoined upon the municipal authorities the desirability of better regulating the work which had to be done in painting, decoration and so on, of public offices and buildings. He submitted to the House that the only way in which such regulations could be imposed was by some statutory limitation that would prevent the workers in the building trade from being overworked in the summer-time, from being rushed in so many months of the year, and from being starved and robbed as they were now during the winter months. He had conversed with both employers and workmen in the building trades upon the argument so often brought forward that the work itself must necessarily be done and could only be done during the summer months. Their experience was that much of the work now done in the summer could be as well done in the winter, and only by legislative action could this regulation be imposed so as to give evenness and balance to that class of labour. Other trades and industries could be used for the purpose of argument, but it might be said that there was still the difficulty of competition. It would be asked, whatever would they do if the foreigners overcame them because

673
they imposed an eight-hours day or further limited the hours of labour. They would probably be asked how would they be able to face foreign competition under those circumstances. Leaving aside the whole of the trades he had mentioned, and any of the trades which might be affected by foreign competition, they had any number of home industries and trade occupations in no way touched by even home competition. There were all the trades and occupations in connection with the railway service, tramroads, canals, public buildings, building trades generally, various forms of vehicular traffic work and other trades in which there were hundreds of thousands employed, the regulation of whose hours of labour would provide openings for the class of men who were now shut out from an opportunity of work altogether. Many workmen were compelled now to work a week and a half almost for one week's wages. So much was this the case that the overtime system had grown so great that it was now known in many trades and industries as systematic overtime. This was the condition of things which could only be removed by statutory enactment. Then there was the shareholder. It would be asked what were they going to do with that class of the community who were dependent for their living on their shares and dividends, if there were further burdens imposed upon them. The shareholder had his first concern, and all the time was the man who held himself ready to do his share of work for whatever he was able to get in the course of his life, and he declined to give undue consideration to that class who expected that another class should labour long and unduly, and altogether out of all reasonable expectation in order that they themselves should have their shares and returns maintained at their present level. The present profit from trade and business afforded ample proof of the way in which trades could stand a diminution in the hours of labour. The great gains from businesses, the ever-growing profit of the men at the head of vast business concerns showed that still our trades could stand any such proposal as they were making in this Motion. He would refer for a moment to the conditions which existed in the case of that great
674
new vessel of which they were all so proud, the "Lusitania." It had been shown in connection with that vessel that the coal consumed on a return journey amounted to 16,800 tons. They had royalties in this country, and the royalties alone paid upon that tonnage at the rate of 9d. per ton in the course of a return journey was £630. The same vessel employed 333 men as trimmers, firemen, greasers, labourers and men doing the hard task down in the hold of the boat. The total wages of the whole of those men for a return trip for a fortnight's labour amounted to only £538 10s., or less than the royalty received on the amount of coal consumed for a return journey of that vessel. In view of those facts he thought the House would be willing to accept any proposal which would tend to equalise the burden and give fair play to the industrial workers of this county. The Leader of the Opposition had recently addressed himself to this subject, and said that production and not distribution was the fundamental fact. The sentence was a long one, but that was the kernel of it. In his view the great fundamental fact should not be merely to produce wealth but equitably and reasonably to distribute the wealth so produced. They wanted to give the working classes greater facilities for rest and recreation and of being better men and women, and the Motion would tend towards securing the more equitable distribution which they desired. The hon. Member for North Paddington had presented to the country facts and figures which he had not seen disputed, going to show that one-third of the entire income of the United Kingdom was enjoyed by one-thirtieth of its people. It might be said in the course of the debate that what they wanted to remedy this evil was protection and tariff reform. They had not only had an opportunity of visiting other lands, but they had also excellent newspaper communications to provide facts to shape their judgment upon this question. Last night one of the newspapers which every evening informed them that tariff reform meant work for all contained half a column of the most distressing news which any person could read. In that paper the reader was informed of how in

675
Paris men and women were living under conditions of drudgery, the lives of slaves paid at the lowest possible rates, even when compared with the workers in this country. It also stated that the hours of labour in Paris were more irksome than in this country. In his opinion, the best way in which to deal with foreign competition was to improve the condition of English workers so as to make them more efficient not by overworking them, but by increasing their capacity for productiveness and improving their general character and power to make wealth. In asking the House to approve of this Resolution he contended that the claim of humanity should be above that of trade or commerce, because in considering the hours of labour they were considering the life of human beings. When they were considering what ought to be done with this class of people, they ought not to consider them as profit making material on which the commercial stability of the nation depended, but as human beings representing the life of the country. In conclusion he asked the House to agree with the proposition that the establishment of an eight-hours day would tend to equalise the burden which now so heavily pressed upon the shoulders of the industrial classes, tend to diminish unemployment, lessen accidents, and improve the character and the outlook for our industrial population.
*MR. KELLEY (in seconding the Resolution, said that the question did not come before the House in exactly the same position as it had come before trade union congresses, where for many years it had been looked upon as a hardy annual. He thought it was fast becoming a hardy annual as far as the House was concerned, the Resolution having been moved over and over again by Members representing various trades and industries. The principle had been demanded by miners and bakers and it had actually been asked for by the attendants in lunatic asylums, and when a principle had got that far he thought it was time that the question should be dealt with in the House of Commons. The reason they were asking for an eight-hours day or a forty-eight hours week by
676
legal enactment was that these who had had experience in the labour world knew the difficulties, trouble, and expense of obtaining a reduction of hours in any particular trade. Some years ago he was engaged in a movement which asked not for a forty-eight but a fifty-hours week, and after fighting for sixteen weeks, losing every penny they had got, mortgaging the future and putting the General Secretary in pawn at the bank, they had to give up the struggle as useless because they were not strong enough to carry it through. That was his experience in regard to demanding a fifty-hours week, and a similar experience had been gone through in other industries. Therefore, they had concluded that it was a waste of energy and money that a process of that kind should be gone through when common sense pointed to this House having the power to grant a concession of the kind asked for as an act of justice to be meted out without undergoing the painful process he had described. The conditions of labour had in recent years been very much altered. When he worked at his own particular trade the conditions were altogether different: new machines had been introduced, the speed of old machines had been very much increased, 'and as a result the output had also very much increased. He ventured to say that under all these circumstances an eight-hours day would take more of the life out of a man than a ten or twelve - hours day would do twelve or fifteen years ago. That was the case in his own trade union and in a large number of others, and that was another reason why they sought an eight-hours day. Then, as had been stated by the mover of the Resolution, it would tend very largely to decrease the number of men who were out of employment. That was a growing difficulty from year to year, and he was quite sure that the whole country ought to be particularly grateful to the trade unions for what they did in spending such a large amount of money in keeping from the rates men who without those payments would have to go upon them. The immense sums of money spent year by year by the trade unions should commend them and the requests made by them to the consideration of the House. The returns

677
showed that one large society of which he had personal knowledge, out of something like 35,000 members had about 14,000 members unemployed, whilst another large society with close upon 70,000 Members had nearly 10,000 members unemployed. Let the House imagine for a moment the number of unemployed in those two particular skilled trades which were in every day request, while those employed worked nine, ten and eleven hours a day! Did it not stand to reason that some effort should be made to equalise employment by which these men should be prevented from working such a large number of hours? Then a great deal had been made at different times in argument and debate as to the impracticability of carrying out the eight-hours day. They heard many Members say the thing could not pay and that it meant ruin. Evidences and experiences they had went to prove that that was not altogether the the thing could not pay and that case. He remembered something like twenty years ago the head of a large engineering house in the North of England doing him and two or three of his colleagues the honour of discussing the practicability of introducing an eight-hours day into his establishment, no doubt in doing so giving them the credit of having some practical experience. They pointed out how it could be done and he fell in with their views, with the result that the system was introduced. The employer afterwards informed him it had exceeded his expectations, and that under no condition would he go back to the old state of things. There was another firm he could refer to further north still which had introduced a forty-eight hour week, where previously they had worked fifty-three hours. Being desirous of knowing how it was working inquiries were made and the reply was that the alteration was beneficial to both employers and employees. From 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. of the workmen had previously lost quarters in the morning and if the men were losing two quarters during the week, and those quarters were the shortest part of the working day, it must be apparent that the conditions they were
678
imposing on the workmen were such as they were physically incapable of fulfilling. After the change in the working hours that was not the case. As regarded workmen on piece - work, they invariably worked in squad and where one or two men had been unfortunate enough to lose the first quarter in the day it had upset the whole of the arrangements. They found it now decidedly to their advantage and decidedly to the advantage of the men to start work at an early hour, let them have their breakfast before they went to work, and work the whole day with simply one break for meals. The fifty-three hours system occasioned two breaks for meals, which entailed a certain amount of loss to the employer, and the one break was a decided advantage. Then again to go a little further a field, they in the trade union and industrial world were apt to look upon Russia and everything connected with Russia with a feeling of horror and dread, and a thankful feeling that they were not in Russia. Nevertheless he found that in Russia there was a large firm engaged in paper-making. He noticed that the paper-makers in this country were trying to bring about a change in the direction of reducing hours to forty-eight per week. This Russian firm some time ago tried the experiment. He had obtained a pamphlet from the Consul at St. Petersburg which stated that the mill manager expressed the greatest satisfaction with the change and concluded with these words—
"The operatives have conscientiously fulfilled the obligations they undertook in return for the more favourable conditions of work. The production has not suffered cither in quality or quantity and a great improvement is observable in the health and spirits of the men."
That was Russia—terrorised and tyrannical Russia. Perhaps they might apply that a little nearer home and try the experiment here. Then they had another large firm on the Thames, the Thames Ironworks, which had introduced the eight-hours day. He was not quite sure of his facts in regard to it, but he was inclined to believe it had turned out a success. At any rate, he remembered speaking to Mr. Hill on the subject some years ago, and he had

679
told him that while he used to pay £99,000 a year in wages at the time they worked fifty-four hours, he now paid £242,000. That was the difference in five years. That might be taken to show that the eight-hours day had not killed trade. Of course, the mere increase in the wages bill, irrespective of any other consideration could not have any special attraction for employers, but this great increase in the wage bill had been accompanied by increased output at a decreased cost. Those who had any knowledge of Mr. Hill knew perfectly well that he might be relied upon with regard to anything he might have to say. He would like to get a little nearer a trade of which he had a better knowledge. There was in this country a society called the Co-operative Printing Society, with three branches, one in Manchester, one in Newcastle, and one in London. In these three branches they had nearly 1,000 hands employed. He had been a director of that committee now for ten or twelve years, and the experience that he had had there was sufficient to convince him of the practicability of the establishment of a forty-eight-hours week with fairness, and without any likely loss to those firms who might adopt it. They paid the highest wages paid in those trades—printing, lithographic printing, book-binding, and everything in connection with the printing trade—and in many instances they went considerably higher than the recognised rate. At the same time all employees throughout the works were granted a holiday each year of one, two, or three weeks, according to their position and the time they had been there, and the holidays were paid for. He would be better pleased if some other printing houses would take that view. Moreover, every year they had a bonus in wages, and all this was done on a forty-eight hours week, while other firms in Manchester were working fifty hours, in Newcastle fifty-one, and in London fifty-two and a half. It might be said that the co-operative society was subject to the same keen competition to be found in regard to other trades. Nearly every job that came into those printing offices was obtained by competition with other houses, who were working fifty-two to
680
fifty-four hours per week. If the forty-eight hour week could be worked with success in this case it could also be worked in others. But here came the point. It might be asked why, if this could be done in these offices, they should come and trouble the House to obtain a forty-eight-hours week. It was very easy to explain. He did not find fault with employers as a class, but they were not ad of a generous character. Each employer generally wanted as much as he could get out of his business. It was generally the greatest amount of work for the least amount of pay. So far as his union was concerned they knew perfectly well that before they could get a forty-eight hours week a large amount of money would be expended, and bitter feeling engendered, and the country would like, if possible, to prevent that being done. He was quite sure that if Gentlemen above the gangway had paid greater attention to social questions whilst in power their ranks would not have been decimated in the manner they had been. There was plenty of room to take a hand in this, and show their sympathy with the worker A member of the Institute of Civil Engineers said—
"It is possible to combine shorter hours of labour at the full previous wages with an increase of net profits on capital, and without any increase in the selling price of the goods."
And the same speaker finished up by saying—
"It is an undeniable fact that those who receive the highest remuneration give the least number of hours in return for it."
There was painful evidence of the truth of that statement. The weekly hours of public officials would not exceed thirty three if holidays were reckoned off. On the other hand, the best situated of the artisan class worked fifty-two to fifty-lour hours per week, and they lost their pay if they had oft time. There were other classes who worked sixty, seventy, eighty, or ninety hours per week. In London the Wages of men who worked over ninety hours per week often did not exceed 17s. to 20s. That was a fact which should bring a blush to the face of anyone who hesitated to lend a hand in bringing about an eight-hours day. He and his friends made this request on the ground that if the proposal were Carried

681
out it would reduce the number of unemployed, as some men would be prevented from working long hours while others were starving. That was the main object they had in view in connection with the whole thing. He sincerely hoped that the House would show a kindly feeling towards the request.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, the time has arrived when, in the interests of the workers generally, and in view of the present large number of unemployed, the working day in all trades and industries should be limited by law to a maximum of eight hours."—(Mr. Clynes.)
MR. MOND ()said that so far as he was concerned the mover and seconder of the Motion had been preaching to the converted. His firm were certainly one of the pioneers of the eight-hours movement in respect of continuous work, and their experience had convinced them that so far as continuous work was concerned—work that went on both night and day—eight hours was long enough time for a man to do good work. Their experience had taught thorn that on account of the increased efficiency they could get out of men working eight-hours shifts, instead of twelve hours, even at the same rate of wages, or a slightly higher rate of wages, the reduction in the hours did not necessarily increase the cost of production. It seemed to him, therefore, that it was a very great pity that the mover and seconder of the Resolution had framed it in a manner which made it impossible for him and many who were in favour of a more general introduction of an eight-hours day to support it as it stood. Although the hon. Members had argued with some force on the case of a certain number of industries, and also on the case of a certain number of isolated facts, they had not demonstrated to the House how it would be possible, for instance, to apply a maximum eight-hours day to agricultural labourers and domestic servants, or to the whole of the large number of industries in which the labour was not carried on in a regular manner, as in a factory, hour after hour. If the hon. Members could have seen their way
682
to mend the Resolution and to be satisfied for the present with an eight-hours day in all continuous work, he personally would have been ready to support them. But a good many of their arguments seemed to him to be intended more for the members of their own trade unions. As to the question of overtime, he was really surprised at the attitude taken up on the Labour Benches. Overtime was really the great joy of the trade union worker. [Cries of "No."] Certainly. Most employers spent a great deal of their time in trying to avoid overtime. It was almost a perpetual struggle.
MR. CLYNES: May I point out that at the last Trade Union Congress, and, at other similar gatherings of the representatives of labour, the system of overtime was absolutely condemned?
MR. MONDsaid he did not doubt that, but a great many resolutions were passed at these congresses which received very little attention from the members of the unions. Surely it was in the power of trade unions to prohibit men from working overtime. Surely no one with practical experience would tell him that there was not a large percentage of men who liked to work overtime, whenever they got the opportunity, because they got larger wages. He knew that among Labour leaders it had been very much discouraged, but he wondered if all the members of the unions knew that under this proposal they were only to work eight hours, and that there was to be no overtime with extra pay, how many would be anxious to support the Resolution. There was one point on which certainly the Resolution and the arguments which had been used in support of it seemed to him to be contradictory, and that was the question of unemployment. They had been assured and he agreed to a certain extent that a reduction in hours did not necessarily mean a smaller output per man. As a matter of fact, they might with a smaller number of hours get equal or greater efficiency.
MR. CLYNES: In the case of trades where machinery is used.
MR. MONDsaid that that was so, but he went further. Surely it was a shortsighted view of the unemployed question to hang it on the hours question. After all, the main factor in unemployment was population. If every man in the country was employed to-morrow, and if the population went on increasing, they would soon have a number of unemployed. Were they going to reduce the number of hours from eight to six, from six to four, from four to two, as the population increased, in order to deal with the problem of the unemployed, for that was the logical outcome of the argument? He did not think that that was an argument that could be very successfully pursued. He was told the other day of a case in connection with some carpenters. A gentleman who was employing seven trade unionists wanted to work them on short time instead of dismissing some and working the others on full time. The people who objected were the trade unionists, who were anxious that the three should be turned out of work and that the other four should work full time. On a great many of these questions he thought the trade union rules of to-day were antiquated and wanted revising. The whole overtime question wanted to be taken in hand in a much more serious way than it has been in many industries. One of the great difficulties in connection with the engineering industry was the question of working double shifts. He knew some cases where double shifts could have been worked, but it had been made impossible because the trade union rules would not allow them to employ two sets of men on shifts of eight hours each at the ordinary rate, but insisted that the second set should be paid at overtime rates. Hon. Gentlemen should address themselves to these questions of which they were fully aware and overhaul a great many of their own regulations which were now out of date, and by altering which they could achieve a great many of the objects they all had in view without coming to this House in order to try to impose a kind of penal Act of Parliament, while not showing how it was to be carried out. The great difficulty was how to carry out this proposal. If they were to have millions of inspectors
684
going about checking the hour book of every workman in the country, who was to be punished if the eight hours were exceeded? Were the employers to be fined and the workmen put in prison? How were they to carry out the enormous undertaking of a legal maximum in varying conditions? Were they to put an inspector on every hansom cab in order to find whether the driver had worked eight hours or eight hours and a half? Sympathetic as they must all be, and convinced as he was himself that the eight-hours movement must and would come along, a general Resolution of this kind, although it might sound well at a Trade Union Congress, was not one which he himself would recommend the House of Commons to place on its records. They had been too fond in the past of placing abstract Resolutions on their records without thinking how they were going to carry them into effect. They thereby awakened expectations in the country which afterwards they could not carry out. He thought that was a very bad thing. They ought not to pass Resolutions unless they saw their way to carry them into legislative effect, and neither the proposer nor the seconder had outlined in the slightest degree how he would draft a Bill to carry the Resolution into effect, and how he would convince the workmen he represented that it would be workable. For these reasons he would certainly vote against the Resolution if it went to a division.
*MR. W. H. LEVER ()said that he also was unable to vote for the Resolution, although strongly in favour of the principle of an eight-hours day. He much regretted that the mover and seconder of the Resolution had not given the House some enlightenment as to how they would apply such a very far-reaching principle. With all they had said of the beneficial effects of an eight-hours day he cordially agreed, both from his reading and from his own experience; and he was certain that in all sections of the House there were employers who shared his opinion. But the House had not been told a great deal that it ought to have been told as to the proposal to enact short time for the whole of the

685
workers of the country. If they were going to limit the hours universally to eight per day it would raise the whole question of wages. Eight hours a day, which, as he considered it, ought to be arranged for, would mean forty-eight hours work in the week, while the worker would receive the same pay as he received for working fifty or fifty-two hours. Anything less than that would be simply equivalent to short time. Further, if such an Act was passed by this House, and any trade, by their own volition, preferred to continue to work a greater number of hours than forty-eight in the week, was the penalty to fall on the employer alone, or on both the employer and the workmen? [An HON. MEMBER: It is to fall on both.] All the references to the subject which he had seen generally proposed that the employer alone should be penalised? [An HON. MEMBER on the LABOUR Benches: Both must be penalised.] In that case the House would, in a very light mood, be creating a law which would make law-breakers of both the employers and the employees in the vast majority of industries where an eight-hours day would be impossible. He did not think that the supporters of the Resolution seriously proposed that such a law should come into operation. Moreover, such an Act of Parliament would undermine the trade unions of the country. He was a convinced trade unionist; he believed that combinations amongst workmen were not only necessary and desirable, but the only means of giving voice to the workers. But such an Act of Parliament would group all workers together, and he was convinced that the workers did not wish to be grouped together. They had a scheme in the building trade in his neighbourhood by which the men worked forty-two and a half hours a week in the winter months, and fifty-two or fifty-four hours per week in the summer months; but such a scheme would be destroyed if universal forty-eight hours work per week were made compulsory. The question of shifts had been referred to. He agreed that in all continuous work the rule should be that no man should work too long a shift, and that the shifts should be divided into three sections of eight hours each. That was an easy matter,
686
and would not affect any other trade. As to railway men, when he heard statements about their working eighteen hours out of the twenty-four, was reference made to employment at wayside stations where there was one station-master and one porter, four or five trains a day, with sometimes not a single passenger, and not many with luggage? There was an illustration of the difficulty of making a hard and fast line of an eight-hours day. There were industries where eight hours was more than a full day's work, which a man could perform, but there were other industries where the work was in the open air and where the duty was such that they could work for more than eight hours a day. As to the bogey of foreign competition, so far from any danger arising as the result of beneficial legislation or arrangements adopted by individual trade unions, they need not fear foreign competition. The one trade which was in the most deplorable conditions to-day in the United Kingdom was the building trade, and that was a trade which was never affected by foreign competition. There was no country in the world where the employer worked so well with his men and felt with them so much as in this country. During the last fifty years the hours of labour had, by friendly arrangement between the employer and his workman, been reduced from twelve to eleven, from eleven to ten, from ten to nine, and now they stood at eight-and-a-half, and he hoped it would shortly come to eight hours. He thought this policy of friendly arrangement should be continued, and that there was nowadays too great a tendency to come to the House of Commons and ask the House to make bargains for the whole country. The House could only legislate on broad lines, whereas trade unions could make their relations with the employers in accordance to their own individual and collective requirements. They should continue to work along these lines, instead of appealing to Parliament for legislation which would make a large number of people lawbreakers. It was on these lines that he believed that they would be able to lift the workmen of the country to the highest pinnacle of any workman in any country in the world.
*MR. MACPHERSON ()said the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had again expressed, as they had heard recently expressed in other directions, sympathy with the trade union movement, while at the same time stating that the proposals emanating from the Labour Benches would be most decidedly injurious to the trade union movement. They welcomed sympathy, but he could assure the hon. Gentleman and his friends that the trade union movement could take care of itself. They did not say that any social problem could be solved in a simple manner, but they did say that it was the duty of statesmen to attempt to solve all problems connected with the social condition of the people. Trade unionists were most interested in this question, and had tried to solve it with reference to their own members. They had made proposals to their employers, which had been rejected and almost thrown back in their teeth. He represented the steel-smelting industry, and they had converted the members of then-unions in different parts of the country to make a personal sacrifice of wages so that they could put an eight-hours day into operation. At a conference with the employers held in Newcastle-on-Tyne, a proposal by the trade union was made to the employers that instead of running two shifts of twelve hours each as at present, they should run three shifts of eight hours each, and that the present earnings of two shifts should be divided between the three shifts. The union guaranteed to the employers that this arrangement would not increase the cost of production by one cent. They showed the employers that that principle was in operation in South Wales and on the North-East coast of England, yet the employers, when the men were prepared to sacrifice 33 per cent. of their wages for an eight-hours day, had not sufficient faith in the success of their industry under these conditions, and refused to accept the proposals. If this arrangement were followed in his own trade in the North-East of England and the West of Scotland, it would instantly absorb 1,500 more men into the industry, and thus be a factor in dealing with unemployment. It should be remembered that they were not
688
that evening introducing a Bill, but only a Resolution which affirmed a principle which they on the Labour Benches thought was necessary for the welfare of the industrial community. He would remind hon. Members of the progress they were making in production and in the extension of machinery. The Lancashire textile trade had just perfected a piece of machinery by means of which one man operating was going to throw six men on the labour market. In all branches of trade to-day machinery was decreasing labour and sending men on the streets where they were idle. What was the result? Men drifted into our distributive trades which did not depend upon machinery. There was therefore a larger capacity in the distributive trades to absorb unemployment than in any other industry. He believed that if business men would apply their business capacity, if the statesman would apply his statesmanship, the difficulty of the agricultural labourer and of the domestic servant could be overcome, if they put into the human side of industry the same amount and the same capacity of thought that they put into merely the percentage and dividend side of it. They heard a lot in the country and in this House about the interests of capital and labour being identical. But if they were, why this contest over an eight-hours day? If the interests of capital and labour were identical, why was the pathway of reform ever the pathway of conflict? He appealed to the House of Commons not to dismiss this Resolution in a light manner or to throw it in any shape or form contemptuously on one side. He appealed to them to accept the Resolution simply as a statement of principle which if it was ever embodied in a Bill could have its weaknesses indicated both inside and outside the House. They wanted the workers of the country not to be the beasts of burden that they had been up to now, and as their altitude of life increased and as their education increased their needs would increase and would demand a reduction of their hours of labour. He therefore hoped that the House would accept the Resolution and that in the near future something would be done to give effect to it.
*MR. HAROLD COX ()said it was quite true as the hon. Member for Preston had told them, that this was not a Bill, but it was a very definite Resolution. It was a Resolution declaring: "That in the opinion of this House the time has arrived when in the interests of the workers generally and in view of the present large number of unemployed, the working day in all trades and industries should be limited by law to a maximum of eight hours." The seconder of the Resolution had spoken of a forty-eight hours week, but if we were to preserve the happy custom in this country of having a Saturday afternoon holiday it would not be a forty-eight hours week, but a forty-four or forty-five hours week. Otherwise the Saturday afternoon would go, because under the Resolution the working day was to be limited to eight hours in every day. [Cries of "No no."] His hon. friends had not read the Resolution or they would find that the working day was to be limited to a maximum of eight hours. They were asked to vote that Parliament should pass a law that no man should work more than eight hours at any trade or occupation in the United Kingdom on any one day out of the 365. He had had the pleasure if he might say so of opposing hon. Members opposite when they had made proposals to the House on previous occasions, but he would go so far in accord with them as to say that he was perfectly willing to admit as a principle that there were cases in which it was desirable and justifiable that the State should regulate the hours of labour. He was not one of those who drew a hard and fast line and said that the State should never regulate the hours of labour. He thought cases might arise in which that was the most convenient way of arriving at a working rule. He sympathised with what his hon. friend had just said in dealing with the case of the steel-smelters and their condition. The hon. Member had said that although his union had offered to reduce wages in order to get a three-shift day instead of a two-shift day the employers would not give way. That reminded him of the story of a bishop who came late at a certain meeting, and said he had been bitten
690
by a mad dog, whereupon Sydney Smith said he should like to hear the dog's account of the story. He agreed that it would be well that the smelter whose labour was very hard should not work more than eight hours a day, but it did not follow from that that a porter at a country railway station should work only eight hours a day. If justice was aimed at, what was the reason for limiting these two classes of men, the intensity of whose work was so different, to exactly eight hours a day each? There was one point upon which he thought that employers and trade unions should cooperate to get a better condition of things, and that was with regard to work before breakfast. It had always seemed to him to be one of the most unfortunate features in the industrial system of this country that a man should have to do an hour and a half or two hours labour before breakfast when he was not able to put forward his full strength, and if employers and employed would co-operate so as to get one break in the day instead of two, he thought it would be an advantage all round. But even on this point, one could not dogmatise, as there was the wife to consider and her unwillingness to get up in order to prepare her husband's breakfast. Was the hon. Member for Clitheroe prepared to say that henceforth no one in the cotton trade should work more than eight hours a day? If he did, it was a very serious statement to make, because it was the most important and valuable of our export trades, and it lived on the narrowest margin of profit. He could not conceive any greater madness than for the House to say, without going into details, that in future this enormous industry should have its hours reduced to eight hours a day, or forty-four or forty-five hours a week. If men in this country were only to work eight hours, how was the regulation to be enforced? Were they going to send a policeman all round the country to see that the new small holders did not work more than eight hours a day? What was to happen to the beasts if they fell ill? Were they to remain in the fields and die, because the man who looked after them had done his eight hours work? That reminded him of the story of some

691
of the London unemployed who were sent down to work in the country, and were horrified to find that there was no Saturday half-holiday and that the beasts wanted food on Sundays as well as on week-days. He was quite certain that every Member on that side of the House was as anxious to get the working-day reduced as any hon. Member opposite, but Liberals did not accept the fallacy that by making an eight-hours day and reducing the hours of labour they could make room for an unlimited number of the unemployed. That fallacy was based on the assumption that wages were drawn from the pockets of the well-to-do classes. Hon. Members forgot that the wages were produced by the workman himself, and that ultimately each workman had to make his own wages and a little bit over to bear the cost of the business. [Ironical LABOUR cries of: A little bit over.] Sometimes a little bit over, sometimes a big bit over, and sometimes nothing at all. If hon. Members were going on the assumption that by reducing the number of hours, they could make two men do one man's work they would find ultimately that two men would have one man's pay. It was conceivable that, by passing a Bill, they might make railway companies, who were bound by their obligations to the State, decrease the hours of labour of their servants at the expense of dividends. The some might be said in the case of tramway servants. But such a transference of wealth from one class to another by Act of Parliament would be an extremely arbitrary proceeding, and would in effect create a privileged class. Taking our industries as a whole no such proceeding was possible. The employer was not a man who provided wages out of his own bottomless pocket. He had to secure from his customers the wages he paid, and in nine cases out of ten his customers were themselves working men. The employer was in fact the go-between between one set of workmen and another set of workmen, so that in effect the workmen of this country were their own employers. The share of wealth that went to them might well be increased, and that of the capitalist decreased, but how were they to do that? The only way was by increasing the supply of capital which would
692
make it cheaper, and the fault of most of the proposals from the other side was to make capital scarce and dearer. The ultimate solution was for the workers themselves to accumulate capital and become capitalists and wage-earners at the same time.
*MR. NICHOLLS ()said that from the speeches they had listened to from both sides he thought there was a point in this Resolution up to which all of them could agree, but he was bound to say that when he came to that little word "all" he had to part company with his friends on that side of the House. Even at trade congresses it seemed to him that the agricultural labourers had been seldom thought of, or anything said about them, but, after all, they were a very large section of what they might call industrial workmen, and hon. Members must know that this Mot on could not be applied to all classes of labour, for example, such as the work of the agricultural labourer. At the best the principle for which his hon. friends were contending could only be applied to certain special industries in the large manufacturing towns. He would not say anything about the miners who had fought their case and won their right for an eight-hours day. The railwaymen also had shown that they had been kept too long at their duty. The men on the tramways might also be dealt with by the Resolution, together with all Government workers, and he was bound to say that he believed when men worked fewer hours probably more men would be employed, and something done to solve the question of unemployment. He did not part company with his friends upon that point, but they had to face these difficulties. Let them take the case of a horsekeeper, whose hours, as a rule, lasted from 5.30 a.m. until 6 p.m. If hon. Members tied this man down to an eight-hours day, then it was needful that in some portion of the day's work he should be resting. Another case was that of the small landholder, who in the spring time was in the midst of his seeding operations and could not be told that he must not work more than the stipulated time contained in this Motion. In his opinion the Motion contained a bad principle as far as these men were concerned, and,

693
if hon. Members were to say that the eight-hours day should apply to agriculture as well as to other industries, and that even in the busy season they should not be allowed to work extra hours to earn more money, the labourers would kick them. However dull a person the agricultural labourer might look, he liked a little bit of freedom all the same, especially when there was a chance of earning something extra. Then there was work in the fields in the hay season, work at which he had been engaged from 5 o'clock in the morning until 7 o'clock at night—much too long hours he admitted. Workers in agriculture knew well that there were certain times in the year when they could not earn enough for food, and when the opportunity arose to work longer at other times these labourers were willing to earn extra pay in order to help them to tide over the periods of stress and difficulty. Through the harvest the same thing happened. But what was this Resolution going to do? It was going to say that agricultural labourers were not to start before 7 in the morning, and if they had an hour's rest at mid-day were to leave off at 4 in the afternoon. If an agricultural labourer was compelled to have an eight-hours day, he could not be allowed to go on his allotment after working hours, for he would be told that it was the same industry at which he had been engaged all day long, that having tied himself down to eight hours a day he must not attend to his allotment, but give some other man the job to manage it for him. He, therefore, believed that the agricultural labourers did not want the eight-hours day. If they were in the House they would say for themselves, "We do not want it, and we are not going to have it," but as they could not be present, he was there to say that for them.
MR. H. J. WILSON ()said the business with which he was connected established the eight-hours system some years ago, and they had found it made no difference to them. He did not think they had either gained or lost by it, and he was sure it had been an enormous advantage to those employed. They were better in every way. They were healthier and more ready for work, and there was more
694
goodwill about than before. As had been pointed out, however, the Resolution was of a most sweeping character. The mover had pointed to trades in which terribly, and he might almost say wickedly, long hours prevailed. For instance, the conductors of the omnibuses by which some hon. Members went home worked, he was told, in some cases sixteen hours a day, and had to walk to and from their homes, making really sixteen and a half or seventeen hours a day. He was sure there was not a man in the House who would justify that state of things, or who would not be glad to see it altered. He asked the Labour Members, however, whether the object would not be better obtained by limiting the number of hours, say, to twelve, in the first place, and so dealing with it by degrees. Our factory legislation, he would point out, was not reached at once, but by stages, and so it was with sanitary legislation. He asked hon. Members at least to show good reason why it would not be more feasible and more practicable to limit hours of working by degrees.
*THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,): We agree in the main with hon. Members who have taken part in this debate to-night and who have said that it is impossible to ask the House to accept so sweeping and unqualified a proposal. The hours of every trade regardless of its conditions, cannot be dealt with by a sudden and large restriction such as is proposed, and since every Member knows that effect could not be given to it by legislation, a Resolution of this kind ought not to be placed on the records of the House. But to say that is not to deny that a shortening of the hours of labour in many cases is desirable or that the State could do nothing to effect the shortening of the hours. Some years ago the Royal Commission on Labour, which sat under the presidency of the Duke of Devonshire, took evidence extending over a period of some years with regard to the condition of the working classes. Among that evidence was much that related to the hours of labour in various occupations. That evidence showed that the majority of the English working classes worked ten hours or more, that

695
a considerable number worked eleven hours, and not a few worked twelve hours a day. Since that time probably no very great alteration has been effected in the conditions. It is notorious that many classes of labour are grievously overworked, and that shop assistants, employees in public-houses, vanmen, carters, and persons engaged in many other trades work hours which are excessive. Hundreds and thousands of men and women day by day go to their work in the early hours of the morning, and return to their homes late at night, exhausted by their labour, with few intervals of repose beyond the Sunday rest, and even that is sometimes denied. In the constant endeavour to obtain the means of livelihood they find their lives absorbed and lost. They have no opportunity for self-education or receation, for enjoying family life or undertaking the duties of citizenship. This is not merely an individual loss to them; it must be regarded as a national evil. Of the population of this country four-fifths belong to the labour classes, and the nation cannot be great if a large proportion of them are degraged. The hon. Member who moved the Resolution made a remarkably able and thoughtful speech, but I think the House will scarcely agree with him and those who spoke in support of the Motion in the argument that in a general and permanent reduction of hours of labour will be found any effective solution of the problem of unemployment. It is perfectly true that a temporary reduction of hours in a time of trade depression may spread the sacrifice which falls upon the industrial community over a larger area. Instead of a few men being thrown out of work altogether and being reduced to extreme poverty, a large number of men make a sacrifice and work lesser hours for a lessened payment. Arrangements of that kind are eminently desirable between employers and employed in order to diminish suffering and loss, but I venture to suggest to hon. Members opposite that, if they think a permanent reduction of the hours of labour to eight hours will in the long run increase employment, they have fallen into a very old economical fallacy.
696
The solution of this great difficulty is not to be found on those lines. In the first place, as has been pointed out in this debate, a reduction of hours of labour does not necessarily mean a reduction of production. The same number of men may do as much more work in less hours, and in that case it is obvious there is no room for the unemployed, for there is no demand for additional labour. But suppose the opposite case, where the same amount of work per man is not done in the shortened hours. Let me take a simple illustration. Take the case of tramwaymen. In this industry if you reduce the number of hours you will require a correspondingly increased number of employees to perform the work. Supposing, for example, you have 1,000 tramwaymen employed twelve hours per day and their hours are reduced to eight hours. The obvious and immediate effect is you will require 500 more men to do the same work. That is the immediate and obvious effect which hon. Member's see and emphasise. If you employ 1,500 men where previously you employed 1,000, you have, they say, gone far to solve the problem. But there is an indirect and less obvious, but not less certain effect. These 500 men must be paid from somewhere. Their remuneration does not descend from heaven. They will cost, say at 30s. per week, some £40,000. That £40,000 is an additional expense, not to bring about any increased production or an additional service, but an additional expense merely to pay for the service previously performed by 1,000 men working twelve hours a day. The £40,000 must either be obtained from increased fares, or decreased profits, or subsidies from the rates, and from whatever source it comes it must throw out of employment a corresponding number of men in other directions. That £40,000 represents a demand for labour, a certain bulk of commodities, now devoted to the maintenance of 500 tramwaymen. It had previously gone to the maintenance of some other body of men. You give employment to additional men in one direction, but inevitably in the long run you must be reducing employment, and throwing men out of employment in another. The fact may

697
be made abundantly clear by carrying the argument to its logical conclusion. If a reduction of hours from ten to eight will bring into employment a large additional number of men, so will a further reduction of hours from eight till six. The process can thus be continued till you reach the absurd conclusion that, if, only the working-class work one hour per day instead of ten, we shall be able to support in prosperity and comfort ten times the population we do now. It may be desirable—I do not say it is not—in the case of the tramwaymen working twelve hours per day to reduce their hours. Obviously that is a change which should be accomplished, but, although desirable, it is, as a means of settling the unemployment problem, useless and delusive. If the working classes set their hopes upon this method of solution, they are treading upon wrong lines and towards a goal wholly unattainable. There is no sound economist who will sanction the doctrine contained in this Resolution that a general reduction of the hours of labour can be relied upon to solve the problem of unemployment.
Nevertheless a reduction of hours and an extension of leisure are obviously desirable in themselves, and what this House has to consider on this and similar occasions is how far it is legitimate and practicable for the State to intervene to secure them. One of the most remarkable features of the debate has been that not one Member has risen from any quarter of the House to lay down the old doctrine that in no case should the State interfere to fix the hours of adult labour.
SIR F. BANBURY: I will.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member has hitherto been silent. I noticed his absence and his silence with much surprise. Had this debate taken place sixty years ago, the whole evening would have been spent in discussing whether it was on any occasion legitimate to use the power of the law to interfere in contracts between master and employed and fix hours of labour of those who are assumed to be capable of looking after themselves. This change of attitude
698
which has been so remarkably exemplified to-night has been due to the fact that we have come to regard the principles of liberty in a somewhat different light. The hon. Member for the City of London is, I think, the only Member left in the House who retains the old view. Even the hon. Member for Preston has deserted him. Some years ago he wrote a very able and cogent book, in collaboration with Mr. Sydney Webb, strenuously advocating a general eight - hours day, to be established by Act of Parliament. The hon. Member for the City of London, I think, has never written such a book, and is probably never likely to do so. He still adheres to the old individualistic doctrine of the sacred-ness of liberty, and by liberty he means the absence of legal interference. But does the hon. Baronet really think when men work twelve hours a day for six days a week they work those hours because they want to? There may be other forms of compulsion besides legal compulsion. There is the compulsion of economic conditions. There are few people now who deny that the relations of the Factory Acts extend liberty. They do not stop people from doing what they want to do, bat prevent people being compelled to do what they do not want to do. And so it is in the case of other regulations limiting the hours of labour.
It is quite true, as has been urged by the supporters of this Motion, that frequently and in many trades a short day can be established without any cost to anyone. The production in an eight-hours day is as great as it was in the longer day. That has been remarkably shown by the experience of the Government Departments. In 1894, when the present Prime Minister was Secretary of State for War the hours of labour in the War Office establishments were reduced by an average of five and three-quarter hours per week; some 20,000 work-people had their hours reduced to that extent. An inquiry made by the Board of Trade after an interval of ten years showed that this had been done without any reduction of wages and without any extra cost to the public; and the production at the War

699
Office establishments in an eight-hours day, in a forty-eight hours week, was roughly just the same as it had been in previous years when hours of labour were fifty-three and three-quarters per week. The experience of a large number of private firms has of course been the same. It is obvious that the man who begins his work after an evening's leisure, after a good night's rest, and after a meal in the morning, works briskly and persistently and may be expected to do much more than the man who goes to his labour hungry and already tired. Rut although this may be the rule in many instances, the House cannot assume that the rule will universally apply and that this will always be so in all trades. It has been found from returns supplied to the Board of Trade that an eight-hours day has been established in private firms for only 60,000 work-people in fourteen years. The movement towards an eight-hours-day in private industry has been exceedingly slow. If it were the case that equal production could generally be obtained in shorter hours of labour we might have expected that this process of reduction would have been far more rapid than in practice it has been found to be. It is obvious, when we come to particular industries, that we cannot expect that shorter hours will result in an equal measure of work. Hon. Members opposite have said that the House is discussing a Resolution and that there is no Bill before us. But there has been a Bill before this House, emanating from hon. Member's opposite and introduced in this Parliament each session by the hon. Member for South-West Ham. The purpose of it is the same as this Resolution. The Bill would establish a rigid eight-hours day in every employment on sea and land without any exception and without any exemptions for any circumstances other than actual accident. The penalty on any employer who employed any person for a longer period would be a fine of not less than £100 for each offence. Let us take certain staple trades, some of which have been mentioned. Take, for example, agriculture, the textile trade, shipping, and domestic service. There are four great branches of industry, employing about one-third of the population. Mark how impracticable it would be by a
700
stroke of the pen to enforce any such rigid rule in such cases. In agriculture, for example, as the hon. Member for Northamptonshire has illustrated, it would be utterly impracticable to apply rigid hours of labour. Nature pays no regard whatever to Acts of Parliament. She is totally disrespectful of our laws. You cannot bring the seasons before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. To suppose that you can establish a rigid eight-hours day for agricultural labourers in an industry which in every country and in every age has always had irregular periods of employment necessarily varying with the seasons, is to flout the intelligence of the House. Then with regard to the textile trades, it may be possible gradually to secure a further reduction of the hours of labour, but at one blow to strike off a seventh—for that would be the result of reducing hours from fifty-six to forty-eight—of the productive time of the whole cotton and woollen industry—an industry continually faced by very close and dangerous foreign competition and which in the case of the cotton trade sends some three-quarters of its whole products to foreign markets in competition with foreign manufacturers—to suppose that, is to imagine a change which every Member knows cannot be carried into effect by one single step. Then again, take the case of shipping. An eight-hours day established in the shipping industry would involve an increase of 50 per cent. in the cost of manning our ships, an overwhelmingly heavy change. Lastly, with regard to domestic service, an intermittent employment, there is no possibility in practice of enforcing any such State regulations. I venture to think if hon. Gentleman opposite below the Gangway were on this side of the House instead of that, and if their leaders were seated on this bench instead of on that, and if the hon. Member for South-West Ham were now Home Secretary, he would not lay before the House the Bill which has been proposed with the authority of the Independent Labour Party, and he would find that a measure of that sort would not seem so practicable and feasible viewed from this corner of the House as viewed from that. There are two lines of action on which it is possible and practicable for the State to proceed.

701
In the first place, it is clearly the duty of the Government to make its own employment a model employment. That principle has long been accepted by the House and acted upon by different Governments, and in the War Office, in the Admiralty, in the Post Office, and in all the cases in which the rule is practicable an eight-hours day has already been established by administrative action. Farther than that, the State can in many ways take steps to get rid of the worst evils of excessive hours in private industry. The Factory Acts have that in view. They have been successful in removing the worst abuses of the over-work of women and children. The Factory Act of 1895 enabled the Home Secretary to reduce also the hours of labour of adult males engaged in dangerous processes and that power has been used in various trades. The Railway Servants' Hours of Labour Act has proceeded on the same lines, and has, I think, been effectively enforced. The Early Closing of Shops Act has had the same purpose in view and has achieved some good, but as the Home Secretary has announced, that Act clearly wants strengthening, and it should be the duty of Parliament to carry its methods further. And this year we are asking the House to take the longest step forward that will yet have been taken for the limitation of excessive hours of labour in the Mines Eight Hours Bill. It is often thought that already the great majority of miners underground are employed for eight hours or less, but that is not the case. Of the 700,000 workers employed underground three fourths now work more than eight hours, and many of them work very excessive hours. In Lancashire the ordinary hours of hewers below ground are nine and a half, and other workers ten and a half.
MR. CARLILE (): How many days a week:
*MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: That does not alter the fact. It is not surprising that being called upon to work excessive hours they take certain days of the week as holidays, and that is one of the reasons why the opposition to this Bill must be regarded as exaggerated, see-
702
ing that the opponents of the Bill have never made allowance for the fact that under the eight-hours day the hours of work will be distributed more reasonably and regularly. In South Wales again the hours underground are ten and a half a day. In these cases there are clearly very excessive hours worked. The opposition to which I have just referred is based upon the most exaggerated estimate of the possible cost of introducing the eight-hours day in mines. I have sat behind the Home Secretary when he has received deputation after deputation presenting in the most gloomy terms the disastrous effects of carrying this legislation. All these deputations base their case upon the assumption that a permanent increased cost of coal would follow, of from 1s. 6d. to 2s. a ton—a fantastic estimate based on no facts whatever and supported by no argument, an absurd exaggeration of the probable or even the possible effects of passing the Mines Eight Hours Bill, borne out in no degree by the findings of the Committee which examined the economic effects of establishing the eight-hours day. However, to-night, it is not my task to argue the merits of the Mines Eight Hours Bill. I only wish to make it clear to the House in connection with this Resolution that it is the intention of the Government in this session of Parliament to proceed actively with this Bill, and though some Amendments in matters of detail may be needed, we trust that we shall be able to secure this year for a very large class of men engaged in exceptionally arduous, dangerous and unattractive labour, that larger leisure which we agree with Members who have moved the Resolution is one of the first conditions of a satisfactory life.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR (): Certainly when I came down to the House I had not intended to intervene in the debate, but I am urged to occupy the time of the House for a very few minutes by the interesting address of the Under-Secretary. I did not quite make out whether that speech was intended to be one in favour of an eight-hours Bill for miners or one against an eight-hours Bill for anybody else. It was a most curious speech. He gave us in very terse and powerful language an

703
argument to show that the great textile industries ought certainly not to be limited to eight hours, because he said, they had to meet foreign competition of a very serious character, and if you limit the output of those industries, as you would limit it by reducing the hours from ten to eight, they would not be able to meet their rivals in neutral and in foreign markets. Then he turns to the coal trade and tells us quite incorrectly, I think, that the coal trade is a specially dangerous trade. That is not found to be the case by the Report of the Commission.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): They found it was a healthy trade, but they never said it was not dangerous.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That it is a trade to which there are occasionally great risks attached, and in which great tragedies occur we all know, unhappily by recent and painful experience, but I certainly understood that the average of life in that trade was a good average of life, comparing extremely favourably with the lives of operatives engaged in other industries. I am talking of the length of life where life is brought to a conclusion by disease or by accident, and if you take length of life as a test of the desirability of a profession, I believe coal mining is a healthy trade, and that those engaged in it have more than the ordinary expectation of life which attaches to operatives in other trades. The hon. Gentleman comes down and tells us that this trade, unlike the textile trade, is one which ought to have special consideration, and with a singular want of appropriateness he drags in a defence of the Bill which the Government will have to defend at length later in the session when he is engaged in arguing against limiting the hours in other trades; because when you limit the hours of labour you diminish the output, and when you limit the output you diminish efficiency, and when you diminish efficiency you diminish the power of competing with rivals in other markets, is there no foreign market for coal? He knows well enough that there is a large and increasing foreign market for coal, in which this
704
country has to suffer great competition. The Government of which the hon. Gentleman is a Member boasts that, when they repealed the coal duty, they enabled the coal trade to compete more effectively in these foreign markets than they could when the coal duty was imposed. I fail altogether to understand how the same hon. Gentleman can get up and give his views on the economics of an Eight-Hours Bill, showing how absolutely injurious it is, not merely to the trade, but to the operatives engaged in the trade, when he is dealing with agriculture, the textile industry and other great staple manufactures, and then turn round and tell us at the end of his speech, without a shadow of justification, that there is one trade which escapes from the net of this argument, which gets through the meshes of the dialectic with which he has instructed and entertained the House in the earlier part of his speech, and that is the coal trade. I think when he was dealing with this question on the broad lines which he adopted, the least he could do was to show in what relevant respect the coal trade, for which he proposed to legislate, differs from the other trades which hon. Members below the Gangway have taken under their protection. One other observation, and only one shall I make to the House. The hon. Gentleman in an interesting parenthesis in the middle of his speech told us that not a single Member of the House, except my hon. colleague in the representation of the City of London, had suggested that it was not desirable or competent to deal with the hours of male adult labour. I listened with pain and surprise to the hon. Gentleman. I thought he was an economist of the old school. I thought he carried on the traditions of Adam Smith, Ricardo, James Mill, John Mill, Bright, and Cobden.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Heaven forbid! There are very few of us to-day who share the hostility to interfering with the regulation of labour which was entertained by the Manchester school. As the Duke of Argyll said in one of his books some time ago, it was one of the most valuable discoveries of economic science in the nineteenth century that, while it is essential to limit by law the conditions

705
of labour, it is disastrous to limit by law the movements of trade.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is another discovery which will come he me to the mind and conscience of the hon. Gentleman before he is much older. The doctrine which he now thanks Heaven he does not share was really part of a system, not an isolated opinion on the part of the eminent men whose names I have quoted, but it was part of a general system of laissez faire, of which those particular forms of fiscal orthodoxy which he believes were a part, but only a part. It was a large, coherent, and logical system. The hon. Gentleman not only rejected, but rejected with contumely and contempt, that part of it. He thanks Heaven he is not as they were. He separates himself from these distinguished individualists and advocates of freedom as they understood it, not with regret but with triumph. I cannot help thinking that when the hon. Gentleman has carried his studies still further, he will see that there are other points in which the doctrines of those eminent men required modification, and he may discover that the differences which separate him from hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House are not so profound as he appears, at all events on the platform, occasionally to imagine.
MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON ()said the criticisms against the Resolution seemed to overlook the fact that it was not a Bill. In the Session of 1893–4 the present President of the Local Government Board introduced a general Eight-Hours Bill almost as comprehensive as this Resolution, on behalf of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Congress of which he was then a member. They were justified in specifying no trades, because they did not wish discussion to centre round objections on behalf of any particular trade, and the value of the discussion to be lost. The speech of the Under-Secretary had made clear the intention of the Government to pass this session the Mines (Eight-Hours) Bill. If they had raised this discussion for no other purpose, in view of what had been going on in the country and the suggestions in
706
the Press, it was a great satisfaction that they had got from the hon. Gentleman that declaration. That was a great satisfaction to those who supported this resolution. Another interesting result of the debate was the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, in which the right hon. Gentleman revealed that one more article in the social programme of 1894, which very largely assisted the Conservative Party to power, had been discarded. One of the most important items in the programme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and supported by the late Lord Salisbury, was an eight-hours day for mine s, and after having used that item in that programme for vote-catching purposes they were in 1908 to be told—for that was the only interpretation which could be put upon the speech of the Leader of the Opposition to which they had just listened—that this item was no longer in the programme of the Party which the right hon. Gentleman represented. If the debate had done nothing more than make it clear, on the one hand, that this item was no longer in the Unionist social programme, and on the other hand, that the Government intended to make themselves responsible for the introduction this session of the Miners (Eight Hours) Bill, those sitting on the Labour Benches were satisfied, and these two points had made the debate full of interest. In view of the declaration of the Government in regard to the Eight Hours Bill for miners, he advised his hon. friend to withdraw the Motion. [UNIONIST laughter.] If hon. Gentlemen above the gangway thought they were going to divide the Government and the Labour Party on this question they were mistaken. They were as short-sighted on this matter as the Government were in the division on Friday. If the Government would hold to their promise the Labour Party would assist them in passing that measure into law during the present session. He appealed to his hon. friend to be content with the discussion which had taken place and withdraw his Resolution.
MR. CLYNESsaid he had no desire to shirk a division, but in view of the very definite declaration with respect

707
to a Mines (Eight Hours) Bill, and the many expressions of sympathy in regard to the application of the same principle to other trades and industries he asked leave to withdraw his Resolution.
SIB P. BANBURYobjected to the Motion being withdrawn. It was an extremely important Motion, and the House of Commons should have the courage to show whether they were in favour or against it. He had listened carefully to the speech made by the Under-Secretary, and he could hardly make head or tail of it. The hon. Member said that he (the speaker) was the only Member of the House who held the views he did, and that now even the Member for Preston had deserted him, and he gave as his authority the fact that the Member for Preston had written a book dealing with Socialism. The hon. Member for Preston said he had now changed all the views he then held, because experience had taught him he was wrong. He had come to the conclusion that the book he wrote eighteen years ago did not represent his opinions now, and his hon. friend and himself were still united upon every subject with the exception of free trade, but even on that he still held out hopes that he would be able to convert him.
*MR. LUPTON ()said he would like to give the House the benefit of some calculations he had made as to the proportion of the hours in his life a man would be allowed to work if this Resolution were made law. A man's expectation of life was about forty-six years. Of these twelve were in childhood, and four illness and old age, leaving thirty years of work. Allowing for Saturday afternoons there were only forty-six hours in a week, and allowing for holidays and stoppages there remained only forty-two hours, and these spread over the forty six years averaged only about twenty-eight hours per week. There were 168 hours in a week——
EARL WINTERTONrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question. Debate resumed—
*MR. LUPTONcontinuing his speech said that calculating 168 hours in a week, that allowed one hour out of every six in a man's life for work, and if the man was married and his wife did not earn any money the proportion would be one hour out of every twelve hours during life of the couple. [Cries of "Divide, divide."] He could not be a party to a measure which would make it a penal offence for a man and his wife to do more than one hour's work for wages in every twelve hours.
And, it being Eleven of the Clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

SUPPLY [20TH FEBRUARY] RKPORT.
Resolutions reported.
SUPPLY [20TH FEBRUARY] RKPORT.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DE- PARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY) ES- TIMATES, 1907–8.
    REVENUE DEPARMENTS.
    1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £260,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs."
    CLASS III.
    2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for the Expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary."

    CLASS IV.
    3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for the Expenses of the Board of Education, including a Grant in Aid of the Imperial College of Science and Technology."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he wished to take the opportunity of asking the Postmaster-General what decision he had come to in reference to the matter of political associations in the Post Office. The matter had already been raised in the House of Commons, and it would be raised until some very definite principle was laid down which all postal servants must follow. Only a few days ago the right hon. Gentleman circulated with the Votes and Proceedings an Answer to a Question in which he stated that there were no regulations with regard to the organisation of political bodies by servants of the Post Office.
    *MR. SPEAKER: The point which the hon. Member is seeking to raise should be raised on the salary of the Postmaster-General. That is not contained in this Vote.
    SIR F. BANBURYcalled attention to an item for the purchase of sites, and pointed out that while the original Estimate was £110,000 the revised estimate was £160,000, an increase of £50,000. The question of purchasing sites was not one which came up unexpectedly, and he wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman why there had been such a large increase in the Estimate. He observed also that there was a Supplementary Estimate for £59,800 in connection with the telegraph service. Last year the hon. Member for Preston moved a reduction of the Vote on the ground that the telegraph and telephone services were run at a loss, and not managed in a businesslike manner. It seemed to him that the hon. Member for Preston was right, for they had an increase of £59,000 which apparently had arisen from bad administration in working the telegraph and telephone services. And, therefore, he would be obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would give him some details as to the reason why this increase had come about. Further, under Sub-head C, there was an amount to meet expenditure in consequence of the changes recommended by the Select Committee on Post Office
    710
    servants being carried out. He would like to have some little explanation of that. He wanted to know what effect the increases given had had on the Post Office servants. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House that the expense under this head for last year came to £100,000, and he presumed that that was part of the Supplementary Estimate that was required. But the right hon. Gentleman had also said that the cost next year would be £500,000, and the year after, between £600,000 and £700,000, although he thought £700,000 would be nearer the mark than £600,000. He found in a newspaper called The Post, dated 22nd February, 1908, this remarkable statement—
    "The year opened with the not unnatural anticipation that the Hobhouse Committee would recommend substantial improvements in the Postal Service. Our past efforts had obtained the long-desired Parliamentary Inquiry which we had fondly hoped would act as an impartial tribunal between us and those in command. We were, however, doomed to failure; instead of an Arbitration Board, we discovered a tribunal bent on resisting the claims put forward on behalf of the staff, and although certain members of the Committee appear to have done their best for the staff, the Departmental views have been given undue preference, and evidence is not wanting that the methods adopted were not above suspicion "
    And then this article goes on to state—
    "As soon as the recommendations of the Committee became known, it was thought advisable to call a special general meeting of members to give expression to the general disappointment and dissatisfaction."
    And further, the article stated that the meeting—
    "Emphatically condemned the verdict of the Committee as being entirely against the weight of evidence, and obtained by methods that were considered very questionable."
    He wanted to know what the right hon. Gentleman thought of his Department telling him that he had obtained results by methods which were considered very questionable—results which would impose this year £100,000 on the overburdened taxpayers of the country, and next year and the year following, between £500,000 and £700,000? He did not object to this if the verdict had been properly given, because he knew that his friend the hon. Member for Hoxton had taken a very prominent part in the business, and if it had gone to satisfy the

    711
    desire of the Post Office servants. But he wanted to know if they were going to vote £100,000 when the Post Office servants were not satisfied? There were other questions he would have liked to have raised, but the hour being late he would only refer to another point in this paper, The Post. The writer went on to say—
    "The ambiguity of the language in the Report made it necessary to lay down the proper interpretation thereof, and the Postmaster-General invited representatives of the Association to discuss these interpretations with himself or the Secretariat. Here again further disappointment was experienced, for instead of discussing what the interpretation should be, the representatives had to listen to what the Departmental interpretation was, without the slightest prospect of altering it. We have no hesitation in saying that the whole business is entirely unsatisfactory from beginning to end, and the reason appears to be that the Government is bent on saving money in every possible way."
    He did not agree with that part of the article. He did not believe that the Government were saving any money except in the case of the Army and Navy. He hoped the Postmaster-General would give a satisfactory account of what he had done himself and would give the House an assurance that this large sum which would be taken by the Post Office servants would satisfy their claims and that they would not ask for more.
    MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid that the House was indebted to the hon. Baronet for the consistent vigilance he displayed in looking after the expenditure of large sums of money which had been voted by the House. The hon. Baronet had pointed out that this Vote involved the expenditure of £100,000 on additions to the pay of Post Office servants and that that would further involve in a short time the expenditure of a still greater sum. Yet under these circumstances, his contention was that the Government had given no satisfaction whatever to their Post Office employees. The hon. Baronet had, by quotation from their newspaper, shown the views of the servants of the Post Office and why they were not satisfied with the conditions of their pay, but hon. Members who were ready to rush and vote without discrimination any amount of money were now inattentive. He wished that the vigil-
    712
    ance of the hon. Baronet were more emulated by hon. Members on the Ministerial Benches. He could not help thinking that so large a sum of money as this might grow to a very much larger extent in time and ought not to be voted without some fuller and more careful explanation than had yet been given to them by the Postmaster-General. They ought to know whether these feelings of dissatisfaction and disappointment among the employees of the Post Office, which had found such eloquent exposition in the magazine which had been referred to, and also been expressed by his hon. friend to some extent, would lead to very large amounts being demanded by these dissatisfied employees.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The hon. Baronet has asked me two specific questions, and I apologise for not being in my place earlier in the evening when he was speaking. The hon. Baronet asked me why we did not anticipate spending £70,000 upon the Birmingham Post Office site this year. The reason is that when we investigated the matter, we found that we were able to complete our negotiations rather sooner than we thought, and we were able to put ourselves two months in advance. That is the explanation of the Vote appearing this year, and not next. As to the telegraph service I can disabuse his mind of the idea that there is any increased ordinary expenditure. If he will look at the Supplementary Estimate he will see that these additions which will fall on the past year are in consequence of the recommendations of the Committee. Therefore any increase of expenditure on the telegraph service has nothing to do with the matter, and it has only reference to the recommendations of the Committee in some cases in regard to increased wages, and in other cases due to improved position. The hon. Baronet will be glad to know in reference to the point he raised as to the necessity of distinguishing between the telegraphic and telephonic services that I can assure him that we have already put our Estimates on the very basis he indicated. We have initiated method of distinguishing between he telephone and telegraph services so; hat those interested will find an

    713
    absolute distinction between the two. I will have a Return made as to the form of Estimate which will show that distinction. I shall be glad of any criticism on the Estimates both in the past and in the future, but in the future we shall have an absolute distinction between telephonic service and telegraphic service. The telegraphic system is a losing one, unfortunately, but the telephonic service is a paying one, and we want to keep it on a paying basis. In reply to the hon. Member I would say that I have already explained at considerable length the amounts which we were voting upon the Supplementary Estimates, and I need not go all over it again. It would be only a repetition of my speech. I explained what the Parliamentary Committee had recommended, and I explained the amount which had been spent. I cannot accept the views which have been read from a service organ and I deny the statements made there. I am quite certain that the Parliamentary Committee of this House did their very best in a very difficult position, and gave an impartial and unprejudiced judgment on the case. As far as I am concerned, I have fully accepted and endorsed the findings of that Committee and endeavoured to put them into force as far as possible, and I think we shall all agree in voting the amount which we have divided among a very zealous and very efficient branch of the public service.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House do agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    MR. BARRIE ()said that before the Vote passed he wished to ask some questions of the Chief
    714
    Secretary for Ireland. They were informed that the Constabulary Force had been increased in the last six months by something like 800 members. They were also aware that the expense of each addition to the force was about £100 per annum. He would, therefore, ask how many extra constables were represented by the amount which they were now asked to vote. It appeared to him that the amount asked for to carry on up to 31st March was insufficient, and he would have expected the sum to be nearer £20,000 than £5,000. Would the Chief Secretary tell them what were the numbers of police in respect of which this Vote was asked for, and whether the sum was adequate? He, personally, had no objection to offer if it was. This however, was the fourth Supplementary Estimate which they had been asked to vote within the last fortnight, and that was a very serious state of affairs. He would be slow to suggest that the sum asked for was not asked for in good faith, but on the information before them it appeared to him that it was hardly sufficient to cover the necessary expense.
    MR. BIRRELL: I can assure the hon. Member that the Supplementary Estimate is perfectly accurate, and that it covers all the services detailed. This is a substantial advance, as we ask for an increase of £2,000. The original Estimate, as the Paper shows, was £18,500, and now the revised Estimate is £20,500. In 1906–07, the grant was £19,000, and the expenditure only £17,311. In 1905–06, the original Estimate was £18,000, and the expenditure only £17,867. In the year 1904–05,. the original Estimate was £20,000, and the actual expenditure £16,724, so that there has been a considerable saving in the past, but now I am sorry to say that there is a considerable increase, the Estimate being £18,500, and the expenditure £20,500. It does not bear any definite ratio to the number of the

    715
    force. It depends on the extent and nature of the duties involving the absence of these men from their stations, and the circumstances under which they were employed. The hon. Member will see that although it is quite true the number of the force has been obliged to be increased this has no ratio to that.
    MR. BARBIEsaid he understood the Vote now under consideration was not the subsistence Vote.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Vote is for an extra amount required in order to provide the subsistence money and travelling expenses. What I was pointing out was that this allowance does not depend on the number of men, but upon the number of times that a certain number of the men might be required to undertake extra duties away from their stations. Therefore, it is not enough for the hon. Gentleman to say that because the numbers of the force have been increased the subsistence amount should be larger.
    SIE F. BANBURYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had made the situation 'absolutely clear. This Vote was not required in consequence of the increase in the force, but because when men were moved from their barracks they had to be paid their travelling expenses and subsistence money in the places to which they had been moved. That meant that there was great disorder in Ireland, which caused these men to be moved from place to place. To make the matter quite clear the right hon. Gentleman had informed the House that in previous years the subsistence allowance was much smaller than at present. It was much smaller because in other years the police having been appointed to a barrack remained there and did their duty there. There were no outrages at the houses of peers or anybody else, no firing into houses or outrages of that kind, and the police did
    716
    not require to be moved. The right hon. Gentleman had made an admission that he could not get out of, and he had to come down and ask for this increase of £5,000 because of the disturbed condition of the country. The House was indebted to the hon. Member for Londonderry for having elicited this important statement. The only doubt in his mind was whether the House ought not to oppose this grant on the ground that it was not sufficient and if his hon. friend would tell with him he would be pleased to divide the House.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYasked whether the increase under this Vote was not 10 per cent. or more. The Chief Secretary in reply to his hon. friend the Member for Londonderry had not given any indication as to whether this Supplementary Estimate would not occur in future years if he and his colleagues remained responsible for the government of Ireland. When they saw an increase of 10 per cent. in a Vote surely they should have some statement from the Member in charge as to whether it would be recurrent. If what appeared in the Press was correct it looked as if this Vote in the future would be increased by 20 per cent. or 30 per cent., because it must be remembered that when men were removed from their ordinary abode they were subjected to great discomfort and living was made more difficult for them. Therefore it was only due to the House that the right hon. Gentleman should tell them whether this Vote would be increased in future.
    MR. BIRRELL: I am not a prophet, but in this case I venture to prophesy that when I leave my office the Vote will increase.
    MR. T. L. CORBETTexpressed the hope that the hon. Baronet the Member for London would not divide the House on this Vote. At the same time it seemed to him a curious thing

    717
    that while they were told Ireland was in a peaceful condition the House should be asked to sanction this very large additional Vote. Eight hundred and two more men had been enrolled, and he thought it was absolutely necessary that this amount should be voted. The right hon. Gentleman was now finding it necessary, at all events, largely and properly to increase the number of police. If he would only give the police the thought that they had behind them a Government prepared to support them and back them up in doing their duty, they would vote this money even more readily. The Government was constantly reiterating that Ireland was in a peaceful condition, and yet they asked them for a largely increased expenditure on police. He hoped his hon. friend would not insist upon dividing the House. He hoped he would accept the assurance of the Ulster Members that there was not a single member of the Force who was not absolutely required to maintain law and order in Ireland. Although the disturbances were hushed up by the Government, they knew the real need for these men, and to do them justice, they had engaged a large extra force.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    *SIR WILLIAM ANSON (): The Vote which accompanies this Supplementary Estimate is somewhat puzzling, the object for which the money is to be voted is a new one. I am glad to see that this Imperial College has at last taken a permanent position, and I am sure everyone who is interested in the technological education of the country will heartily wish it success. I should like, however, to have some explanation
    718
    from the Parliamentary Secretary as to how this particular sum of £6,000 is arrived at. I have no doubt it can be given, but it is not supplied in the Vote added to the Supplementary Estimate. As I understand the matter, the Government are proposing to grant £20,000 a year to this Royal College of Science and Technology, and that £20,000 is to include the money hitherto paid to the Royal College of Science and School of Mines. One must, therefore, look to the Estimates of last year and the Estimates of this year to see what is appropriated to the Royal College of Science and School of Mines to ascertain how this £6,000 is arrived at. I have no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to explain this: In the Estimate for last year there was £15,762 for salaries and expenses; £1,225 for exhibitions and scholarships; £3,750 for the laboratory; £900 for heating; £1,800 for collections; and £150 for furniture, the whole amounting to £26,587. If the College of Science and the School of Mines required £26,587 last year, and if the Royal College of Science and Technology is to receive £20,000 a year from the Government, I do not understand how it is there is still £6,000 due to this institution. Why, having received £26,000, are you asking for more? Then there is an estimate this year for the Royal College of Science of £18,551, sot down as a charge which will no longer be made. There are still in the Estimates for the year charges for studentships, heating, collections, and lighting. If these charges continue, what is this charge of £18,000 odd which is set aside as being no longer due to the Royal College of Science? If that is to be subtracted from the £20,000 which the Government pay to the Royal College, how is it that £6,000 is due still on this financial year? I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary these questions: why, having had so much during the present financial year, are you asking for £6,000 more? Supposing you get

    719
    this £6,000, how do you explain the difference between £26,000 odd, the charge last year, and £18,000 odd which you say will not be charged this year? Lastly, why is this sum to be withdrawn from the 'cognizance of the Comptroller and Auditor-General? I do not understand the position. Here is money granted by Parliament for a definite purpose. Surely the Comptroller-General has first of all to consider whether the money is properly appropriated to that purpose, and next, whether it has been properly applied. What on earth is the reason why this particular sum has been withdrawn from the cognizance of the Comptroller-General on whom we rely for securing that the money vote is applied to the purpose for which we vote it? I have no doubt that there is an explanation of these complications which have bewildered my unmathematical mind, but I venture to think they would be found perplexing to anyone who pays attention to the grants made by the Government to science in its various departments. I do not grudge a single penny which the Government is prepared to spend on this Royal College. I believe the money will be well spent and that the institution is one from which good will result. It is in no grudging spirit that I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to explain how he gets at this £6,000.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. LOUGH,): The hon. Baronet is not unreasonable in asking for an explanation. I am sorry he does not find the note at the foot of the Estimate quite full enough to satisfy him, but I will be glad to give him what he wants. The arrangement is that a grant had to be paid to this new college of £20,000 a year, and I may here dispose of one difficulty that was raised at the end of the hon. Member's remarks. This £20,000 will appear in the Estimates of the Board of Education, so that it will not be withdrawn from
    720
    the cognisance of the high authorities to whom he alluded, and there will still be an opportunity of raising any questions connected with it in Parliament. Now I come to this particular grant-in-aid for this year. The hon. Member quite rightly asked how the amount was made up. It is made up in this way. The Treasury directed that from the day, which was 8th July, 1907, when the Royal College was incorporated, a grant in proportion to the £20,000 a year should be allocated to the Royal College, and that sum came to something like £14,000. But on 8th July the Royal College was not in a position to take up the actual administration of those moneys, and so it asked the Board of Education to go on with the expenditure provided in the Estimates until 31st December. Therefore the grant of £14,000 which it should receive was reduced by £8,000, which was expended by the Board on behalf of the College, thus leaving this amount of £6,000 which is the present grant-in-aid. If the explanation is clear the hon. Member will see that one of his difficult Questions is rather easy to answer. He says: "Why, when this amount was provided in the Estimates last year do you want £6,000 extra? We do not want £6,000 extra. The proportion of our Estimates for three months from 1st January to 31st March, this year will not be paid over. There will be an appropriation-in-aid of £5,000 set off against the grant-in-aid which we ask for now. That, I think, makes one difficulty that has occurred to the mind of my hon. friend disappear. The hon. Gentleman then asked why some part of the Estimate which appeared before for the Royal College of Science and the School of Mines will still appear on the Estimates next year. There are certain expenses which we cannot escape, although there will be a reduction of £18,000 or £19,000 approximately. For instance, we have not only to pay £20,000 to the new College, but also

    721
    fees for students, which will come to a few thousands a year more. All this was part of the bargain, for which I think the hon. Member himself was responsible with the Royal College of Science, and that explains why there will be a certain amount of money in our Estimates still for this purpose on the one hand, and why we ask for £6,000 for this year on the other hand, and why it is not quite an additional expenditure, because there will be an appropriation-in-aid against it. I hope I have answered now the various questions that the hon. Member has put, and that the House will let the Resolution be taken.
    *SIR HENRY CRAIK ()said he hoped the House had found a clear understanding of the position from the words of the hon. Member, but he was afraid that with considerable experience of the Estimates he could not say that that was the case in his own mind. He had known Estimates for a good while, but he was bound to say that he had never seen a more obscure note than that appended to this Estimate. He was accustomed, perhaps, in other days not always to give quite as clear an explanation of the Votes of the Estimates he had prepared as he ought to have done, but anything more obscure than this he had never seen. The note said—
    "The Imperial College of Science and Technology was incorporated by Charter of 8th July, 1907, but the administration of the Royal College of Science and School of Mines was left to the Board of Education until 31st December, 1907."
    That meant, put in plain language, that from 8th July a new body was established to carry on the Imperial College but that the two other colleges, which were to be absorbed in the larger Imperial College were to be carried on by the Board of Education to the end of last year, after which the new body was to assume financial responsibility. As against this expenditure by the Board of
    722
    Education there was to be set off a proportion of the grant-in-aid which was fixed, he understood at the time the charter was drawn up—a grant-in-aid of £20,000. But no part of that grant-in-aid was ever voted till they were now asked to vote a portion of it to the amount of £6,000. They had no right to spend that £20,000 out of the Vote obtained last session. How much did they defray? They deducted from the Estimates for this year £18,550 which was hereafter to be saved and to be replaced by the £20,000 which was in future to be given. But they asked for £6,000 to defray the expenses of three months, from 1st January to 31st March, 1908. If three months required £6,000, how were they to carry on a much bigger, and a growing institution for twelve months for £20,000, which was all that was to be given. According to his best arithmetic the grant ought to be, not £20,000, but four times £6,000—£24,000. That was a very simple rule of arithmetic. Surely the hon. Gentleman would explain why it was necessary to ask for £6,000 for the last three months of the financial year when they were going to give to the new governors who would now be responsible for carrying on the work, only £20,000 for twelve months. That was a question which surely the hon. Member would answer. Next, with regard to the question of control. The hon. Gentleman very airily passed it over by saying the money would be in the Vote for the Board of Education, and, therefore, would not be withdrawn from the knowledge of the House. They all knew that, but the House had decided by Act of Parliament that it could not properly carry out the functions of control without the help of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The mere fact of an item appearing in the Vote so that it might be talked of at twelve or one o'clock in the morning was so inadequate a check upon the expenditure of money that they had established an officer—the Comptroller

    723
    and Auditor-General—to make that examination. But they were expressly told that this special Vote would not be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. He could quite understand why they should prevent this money, which would go to so good a purpose as the Technical College being surrendered at the close of the financial year—why they should allow them to carry on any sum which they might save to the next year. That was quite legitimate, but it by no means followed that they ought to withdraw this sum, which they were paying to a body which would not be represented in that House, from the investigation and control of the officer appointed for the purpose. They were asked on a former occasion to vote £100,000 for the purposes of the Small Holding Act, but although it was expressly laid down that the money saved from one year should not be surrendered at the end of the year, it was also stipulated that the expenditure of £100,000 should be subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
    MR. LOUGH: But that is not a parallel case.
    *SIR HENRY CRAIK: But it ought to be. The note at the top of the page told them that the Vote would be accounted for by the Board of Education, whilst the note at the foot of the page said it would not be accounted for by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. They were practically repealing the Act of Parliament by having an arbitrary note of that kind which was directly opposed to the provisions of the Statute appointing the Comptroller and Auditor-General, whose services they were dispensing with by this note. He did not understand how £6,000 represented one quarter of the £20,000 they were about to devote to the Technical College, and the explanation given by the hon. Member did not in any way
    724
    justify the suspension of the ordinary rule provided by the Statute he had referred to.
    MR. LANE-FOX ()said the explanation which had been given by the hon. Member was anything but satisfactory. The first impression given to the House was that this was' an extra sum acquired for some particular purpose, but his hon. friend the Member for the Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities had shown that it was simply an unexpended balance. Where was that money going to? Was it going to be spent in some other way than that for which it was originally voted? They had been told that the £20,000 would come under the Education. Vote, but he hoped the hon. Member would make that point more clear, and reply to the questions which had been put to him by his hon. friend. Why was £6,000 required to maintain this college for three months and £20,000 for twelve months? This seemed to him to be a very slovenly state of finance and one in regard to which they had a perfect right to demand some further explanation.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he had listened carefully to the questions which had been put by his hon. friends, and what had been said by the hon. Member representing the Government was in no sense a reply to the arguments which had been put forward. The hon. Member for the Aberdeen and Glasgow Universities had clearly shown that this Vote was open to some very grave objection. First of all there was the question of the audit. It was a very serious matter to ask the House of Commons to vote a sum of money in regard to the expenditure of which it would afterwards retain no control whatever. To vote money without any subsequent control over its expenditure was contrary to the practice and the traditions of the House. He well remembered, in years gone by, the hon.

    725
    Member now representing the Government was very active indeed in criticising Estimates, and insisting upon a careful audit of all public expenditure. It was not a mere matter of £6,000 which was involved but a matter of principle, for they had to decide whether they were to give a Government Department power to get hold of money in order to tuck it away out of public sight, the House of Commons having no control over it thereafter. They knew how perfunctory the control of Parliament was becoming in regard to Estimates generally. The hon. Member had stated that this item would appear on the Estimates year by year, but what check would that give to the House over its expenditure? When the hon. Member for the Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities was putting forward his case the hon. Member representing the Board of Education did not even trouble to listen to him, for he was busy talking to another hon. Member at the time. That was the measure of Parliamentary control which Ministers were obliged to give to the House of Commons. What was being done was a scandal. If the public knew the way the Estimates were forced through Parliament by the support of a docile majority, they would make short shrift with the Ministry.
    *MR. CARLILEsaid he wished to enter a protest against the indifferent manner in which Questions addressed to the Government by hon. Members on that side of the House had been received by the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote. This was the second time within the last few days he had felt it his duty to draw attention to the absence of the Minister for Education when the Education Vote had been under discussion. He defied anyone to understand the note to which reference had been made. Hon. Members on that side of the House recognised the value of technological instruction,
    726
    and they hoped the time might come when it would be really adequately supported. There never was a time when it was more necessary than at present that our colleges and schools should be properly equipped for the giving of technological instruction. It was little less than a slight upon the House that the Minister for Education should fail to attend in order that hon. Members might have an opportunity of discussing with him the various questions on which they required enlightment. He moved to reduce the Vote by £100.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote had said £6,000 had been withdrawn from the supervision of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Why had that been done?
    MR. LOUGHwas understood to say that the grant-in-aid itself had not been withdrawn from the supervision of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, but the details which hon. Members were pressing for.
    SIR F. BANBURYprotested against the President of the Board of Education not being in his place when this Vote was being discussed. What was the use of the Comptroller and Auditor-General unless he saw the details? In order that an audit might be effective it was necessary that the Auditor should know how money was spent. If the Comptroller and Auditor-General did not get the details showing how the £6,000 had been spent, the control of the House of Commons over finance was more of a shadow than it had ever been before. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education was a great purist in finance when in Opposition, and he would have protested against the slightest deviation from rule. Now he was the poacher become gamekeeper.
    MR. BRIDGEMAN ()did not see how the House could be expected to agree to this Vote when the Minister in charge refused to give any reason why the £6,000 was withdrawn from the control of the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD ()said he did not join in the protest made by hon. Members against the absence of the Minister for Education. He thought the right hon. Gentleman's able representative would be able to deal with any question which arose in relation to the Vote. They
    were entitled to ask a few particulars. This sum was supposed to represent a proportion from 8th July, 1907, till 31st March, 1908, of the sum of £20,000. A very elementary knowledge of arithmetic would at once show that the proportion was—
    MR. LOUGH MR. LOUGH rose 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, 161; Noes, 23. (Division List, No. 47.)

    AYES.

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Edwards, Enoch (Hartley)

    Middlebrook, William

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Elibank, Master of

    Mond, A.

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Erskine, David C.

    Montagu, E. S.

    Armitage, R.

    Essex, R. W.

    Montgomery, H. G.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Morgan, C. Hay (Cornwall)

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Morrell, Philip

    Barnes, G. N.

    Ferens, T. R.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Findlay, Alexander

    Murray, James

    Beale, W. P.

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Nicholls, George

    Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Gill, A. H.

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Bennett, E. N.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Black, Arthur W.

    Glover, Thomas

    Nuttall, Harry

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Gulland, John W.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Pearce, Robert (Staff's, Leek)

    Brigg, John

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

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Bright, J. A.

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Pollard, Dr.

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

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

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

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

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

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Helms, Norval Watson

    Radford, G. H.

    Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Kuight

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

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

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Cleland, J. W.

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Richards, I. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)

    Clough, William

    Holt, Richard Dinning

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hudson, Walter

    Robinson, S.

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Cooper, G. J.

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Rowlands, J.

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

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Runciman, Walter

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Kelley, George D.

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Kincaid-Smith, Captain

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Seddon, J.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Seely, Colonel

    Crean, Eugene

    Lambert, Robert

    Shackleton, David James

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Crossley, William J.

    Lough, Thomas

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Davies Ellis William (Eifion)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    M'Crae, George

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

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

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

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

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Duckworth, James

    Maddison, Frederick

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Summerbell, T.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

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

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoushton)

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

    Winfrey, R.

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Thompson, J. W. H (Somerset, E

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Tomkinson, James

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

    Toulmin, George

    Williamson, A.

    Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan)

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

    NOES.

    Anson, Sir Hilliam Reynell

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Balcarres, Lord

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Rutherford, H. W. (Liverpool)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Forster, Henry William

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

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

    Gretton, John

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

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Winterton, Earl

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Cave, George

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Viscount Valentia and Lord Edmund Talbot.

    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

    Hunt, Rowland

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Question put accordingly, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    The House divided:—Ayes, 161; Noes, 22. (Division List, No. 48.)

    AYES.

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

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

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Armitage, R.

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Elibank, Matser of

    Marnham, F. J.

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Erskine, David C.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Barnes, G. N.

    Essex, R. W.

    Middlebrook, William

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Mond, A.

    Beale, W. P.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Montagu, E. S.

    Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

    Ferens, T. R.

    Montgomery, H. G.

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Findlay, Alexander

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Bennett, E. N.

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Morrell, Philip

    Black, Arthur W.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Gill, A. H.

    Murray, James

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    Nicholls, George

    Brigg, John

    Glover, Thomas

    Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r)

    Bright, J. A.

    Gulland, John W.

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

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

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

    Nuttall, Harry

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

    Haworth, Arthur A

    Pearce, Robert (Staff's, Leek)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Pollard, Dr.

    Cleland, J. W.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

    Clough, William

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

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

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Higham, John Sharp

    Radford, G. H.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro)

    Cooper, G. J.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Rendall, Athelstan

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

    Hudson, Walter

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

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Robinson, S.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Kelley, George D.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Crean, Eugene

    Kincaid-Smith, Captain

    Rowlands, J.

    Crosfield, A. H.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Runciman, Walter

    Crossley, William J.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

    Lambert, George

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Seddon, J.

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Lough, Thomas

    Seely, Colonel

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Shackleton, David James

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

    M'Callum, John M.

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Duckworth, James

    M'Crae, George

    Shipman, Dr. John G

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Williamson, A.

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

    Thompson, J. W. H (Somerset, E

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

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Tomkinson, James

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

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Toulmin, George

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

    Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Winfrey, R.

    Straus, E. S. (Mile End)

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Summerbell, T.

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

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

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    White, Luke (York, E. R.) m

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Whitehead, Rowland

    NOES.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Forster, Henry William

    Valentia, Viscount

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

    Gretton, John

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hamilton, Marquess of

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

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Winterton, Earl

    Cave, George

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

    Hunt, Rowland

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir. Frederick Banbury and Mr. Watson Rutherford.

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    First Resolution agreed to.

SUPPLY [10TH MARCH] REPORT.
Resolutions reported:
SUPPLY [10TH MARCH] REPORT.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1908–9.
  1. "That a sum, not exceeding £7,129,700, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Expenses of Wages, etc., to Officers, Seamen and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1909."
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,306,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants-in-Aid, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1909."
  First Resolution.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Debate to be resumed this day.
  Second Resolution to be considered to-morrow.

WAYS AND MEANS [17TH MARCH] REPORT.
Resolutions reported:
1. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1908, the sum of £375,817, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
2. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1909, the sum of £44,355,400 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Runciman.
Second Resolution to be considered this day.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-one minutes before One o'clock.