Commons Sitting of 13 May 1908

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

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—London County Council (Money) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  Derby Gas Bill.—Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Bill [Lords].—As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Loch Leven Water Power Order Confirmation Bill.—Read a second time; and ordered to be considered upon Friday.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill.—"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Abergavenny, Newport, Newton Abbot, Stockport, and Waterloo-with-Seaforth, and the Wirral Joint
  1102
  Hospital District," presented by Mr. Masterman; supported by Mr. Burns; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 225.]
  Local Government Provisional Order (No. 8) Bill.—"To confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to Crewe," presented by Mr. Masterman; supported by Mr. Burns; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 226.]
  London County Council (General Powers) Bill; Blackburn Corporation Bill.—Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:—Dublin and South Eastern Railway Bill; City of Glasgow Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under The Tramways Act, 1870, relating to Manchester Corporation Tramways." [Tramways Order Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords].]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the time for the completion of certain works by the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company; to authorise certain street works in the borough of Worthing, and to confer certain powers upon the Corporation of Worthing with reference thereto; and for other purposes." [London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill [Lords].]
Tramways Order Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords].—Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 227.]
London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill [Lords].—Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Hove; and Paisley; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Allanton; Amington; Arley; Baddesley; Birch Coppice; Brook Drift; Chilvers Coton; Cwmllynfell; Exnall; Farnworth and Kearslev; Gwauncaegurwan; Henllys Vale; Kingsbury; Newdigate; Pooley Hall; Tame Valley; Whateley; and Wyken; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against: From Castle Hedingham; Eaton Socon; Greatham; Malvern; Thornton; and Wellingborough; to lie upon the Table.
  Petition from Hove, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour: From Aberdeen (three); Barmouth; Barnstaple; Bedminster; Beech Grove; Birmingham; Bitterne; Blackley; Brighouse; Bristol; Brixton; Brynteg; Builiffe Bridge; Cadman; Castleton; Childrey; Cogan; Dumbarton (three); Dyce; Edinburgh; Elland; Ettrick; Featherstone; Gendros; Glais (two); Glasgow (four); Glyn Ceiriog; Gnawden; Gorseinon (two); Great Yarmouth; Gunnislake; Halifax: Haworth; Hove Edge; Huddersfield; Inverleithen; Keighley; Kemnay; Kilmarnock (three); Leeds (two); Llanfrynach; Llantwit (three); Lockerbie; Lothian; Lwynyrodyn; Mansfield; Maxweltown; Northampton (two); North Shields; Norwich (three); Ossett; Paisley (two); Peebles; Pontardawe; Pontardulais (three); Poplar (two); Queensbury; Radcliffe; Ramsbottom; Renfrew (two); Runswick; Rutherford Rutherglen; Saltley; Sholing; Sketty; Stockport; Sunderland Tayport; Upper Tooting; Walkeringham; Wareham; Whitby; and Wibsey; to lie upon the Table.

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions against: From Dumbartonshire; Paisley; and Peebleshire; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour: From Annan; Baillieston; Darnick; Dumfries; Edinburgh; Ellon; Haugh of Urr; Hilton; Morebattle; Morningside; Pollokshaws; Port Glasgow; and Stewarton; to lie upon the Table.

  PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICERS BILL.
  Petition from Bermondsey, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC-HOUSES (EXCLUSION OF CHILDREN) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Urban District of Llanelly, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for certain classes of Shops [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Code of Regulations for Continuation Classes providing further instruction for those who have left School, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade on their Proceedings and Business under the Weights and Measures Acts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 142.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Order with respect to the Urban County District of Larne [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic, and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3975 to 3976, 3979, 3988, 3993 to 3995 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Cost of Living for Bideford and Ilfracombe.
  MR. SOARES: To ask the Postmaster-General

  1105
  whether he can yet state the cost of living index number for Bideford and Ilfracombe.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
  I am not yet able to do so.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of Mrs. Mary Casey.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have taken any action to have Mrs. Mary Casey, of Ballygran, in the county of Limerick, evicted tenant on the estate of C. F. Drew, reinstated; and, if so, with what result.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have considered the application of Mrs. Mary Carey (not Casey), and her name has been noted as that of a person suitable to receive a holding in the event of the Commissioners acquiring untenanted land in the locality.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of Mrs. Mary M'Donnell.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have considered the case of Mrs. Mary M'Donnell, of East Wood, Glin, in the county of Limerick, evicted tenant on the estate of the Knight of Glin; and, if so, with what result.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have considered the applications of Mrs. M'Donnell, who is the wife of a medical doctor, for reinstatement in three holdings, and after full investigation have refused the applications.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of Michael Hartnett.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say what has been the cause of the delay on the part of the Estates Commissioners in reinstating Michael Hartnett, evicted tenant, on the estate of C. F. Drew, of Ballygran, in the county of Limerick.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.)The Estates Commissioners have noted the name of Michael Hartnett as suitable to receive a holding in the event of their acquiring untenanted land in the neigh-bourhood.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Claim of John Fitzgerald.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have considered the claim of John FitzGerald, of Clounriesk, Askeaton, in the county of Limerick, representative of Maurice FitzGerald, deceased, evicted tenant, for some untenanted land in lieu of his evicted farm.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.)The Estates Commissioners have ascertained that the present tenant of the evicted farm in question is the wife of the applicant, and that the applicant himself lives on the holding with his wife. In the circumstances the Commissioners have decided to take no action upon the application.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of James Power.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will bring under the notice of the Estates Commissioners the case of a poor man named James Power, of Kilbreedy, Kilcornan, in the county of Limerick, who was evicted on title nine years ago by the Earl of Dunraven from a holding consisting of about 27 acres of bog land, of which the former was in occupation for over forty years, on which he spent years of toil endeavouring to reclaim, and for which he paid a rent of £5 annually; and whether, having regard to the fact that Lord Dunraven subsequently gave this land to a man named Millar, and further to the hardship of the case, he will cause the Estates Commissioners at once favourably to consider the claim of Power for some untenanted land in the county.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.)The Estate Commissioners have fully investigated the case in question, and, after consideration of all the facts, have decided to take no action in it.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of Patrick Creedon.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say what has been the result of the Estates Commissioners' investigation into the case of

  1107
  Patrick Creedon, of Monegay, in the county of Limerick, evicted tenant on the estate of the Earl of Devon.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.)The Estates Commissioners will consider the question of providing Patrick Creedon with a holding in the event of their acquiring any untenanted land in the locality.

  School Attendance in Ireland.
  MR. J. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he proposes to introduce a Bill dealing with school attendance in Ireland this session, in accordance with the numerous requests made to him to do so.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.)I would refer my hon. Member to my Answer to the Question put by the hon. Member for the Ossory division on 3rd March, to which I cannot at present add anything.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Cases of T. Buckley and M. Buckley.
  MR. J. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Leiutenant of Ireland it the Estates Commissioners are now in a position to deal properly with the claims of Messrs. Timothy Buckley and Morty Buckley, two evicted tenants on the Morrogh Bernard estate, County Kerry, who have been reinstated by the landlord.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.)A purchase agreement, signed by Timothy Buckley, has been lodged with the Estates Commissioners, and an inspector has been directed to arrange for the expenditure of the free grant which the Commissioners have sanctioned in the case. The Commissioners will not be in a position to take any further action in the case of Morty Buckley until a purchase agreement signed by him has been lodged.

  Irish University Senates.
  MR. J. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will consider the question of adding a fair number of persons directly connected with Irish primary education on the first Senates and governing bodies of the proposed new Universities and their constituent colleges; and whether he is aware that the omission
  1108
  of any such representatives in the published lists is likely to lead to dissatisfaction.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.)The senates and governing bodies have already attained substantially the maximum size, and, as at present advised, I do not propose to add to the number of members in the manner suggested.

  Inspection of Irish Dairies and Cowsheds.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Local Government Board received a deputation of veterinary surgeons in reference to the appointment of a central veterinary authority to look after the dairies and cowsheds in Ireland; and if it is contemplated to appoint a veterinary surgeon for this purpose, or is it' intended to transfer this department of the Board's work over to the veterinary branch of the Board of Agriculture.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.)The Local Government Board will not be in a position to make any final recommendation on this subject until they have had some six months experience of the working of their new order.

  Purchase of Untenanted Land at Beaufort.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether an agreement has now been come to between Mrs. Shelton, the owner of the untenanted lands at Beaufort, in the county of Limerick, and the Estates Commissioners for the purchase thereof.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.)The owner has intimated her willingness to accept the Estates Commissioners' estimated price for the lands in question, and formal proceedings for the sale have now been instituted accordingly.

  Post Office Servants -Private Medical Certificates.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether instructions have been issued to the effect that Post Office officials of certain ranks who may receive sick certificates from a certain duly qualified private medical practitioner in the north-western district of London shall be allowed sick leave

  1109
  but no pay; will he say whether this medical officer had any charge preferred against him in which he was given an opportunity of defending himself; if not, will he say why these instructions have been issued; and, seeing that the Post Office Medical officers have frequently been in conflict with private medical practitioners on the question of sick leave of Post Office officials, and that several cases of death have occurred in which these official medical officers have refused sick leave shortly preceding such deaths, will he now grant an inquiry into this subject.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The acceptance of private medical certificates in justification of sick leave is in the nature of a concession to the Post Office staff, for whom competent medical attendance is provided at the expense of the State. It is obvious that this concession must be subject to certain restrictions and limitations if a proper check is to be maintained upon the sick absence of the staff. Circumstances came to my notice which threw doubt upon the reliability of the certificates issued by the doctor to whom the hon. Member is understood to refer, and I felt it right to lay down that such certificates should not be taken in future as conferring a title to sick pay. The doctor was given an opportunity of explaining the circumstances. I see no reason for granting an inquiry into the subject.

  Sugar Refineries in the United Kingdom.
  MR. LOUGH: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the number of sugar refineries and the number of hands employed therein in the United Kingdom in the years 1902 and 1908 respectively, and what is the annual cost of conducting these refineries in bond.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The supervision of sugar refiners in the United Kingdom by the Customs Department commenced on 1st September, 1903, when fifteen were placed under bond. The number of refineries now under bond is thirteen. The estimated annual cost to the Crown of conducting refineries in bond is £15,245. There is no official information as to the number of persons employed in the sugar refineries.

  Sugar Imports.
  MR. LOUGH: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, what was the quantity of raw beet sugar produced during the year 1907 in the foreign countries set out in Table IV. of the Sugar Return, No. 334, issued in August, 1907; the imports of unrefined and refined sugar as shown in Table V. (A); the total estimated consumption per head of the population as shown in Table VI (B); the British West Indian exports as shown in Table IX.; and the declared average value of raw and refined sugar imported into the United Kingdom for the year 1907 as shown in Table X., and the same average prices for each month of the year, 1908.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The figures given with regard to the production and consumption of sugar in Europe in the Return (No. 334, of 1907) referred to were compiled for the years 1898 to 1906, from particulars collected by the Permanent Bureau attached to the Permanent Sugar Commission. Authoritative information of the same kind for 1907 is not yet available, but unofficial estimates of production can be given as follows—

  I.—Estimated Production of Raw Beet Sugar in the undermentioned Countries during the Sugar Season of 1906–7, (Estimate of the "Association Internationale de Statistique Sucriere").

  Country.

  Estimated Production of Raw Beet Sugar. Tons.

  Russia

  1,410,855

  Germany

  2,206,013

  Holland

  176,517

  Belgium

  277,271

  France

  735,093

  Austria-Hungary

  1,309,215

  Sweden

  153,198

  Denmark

  65,923

  Italy

  113,152

  Spain

  88,357

  Other European Countries

  43,785

  Total Europe

  6,579,397

  Total United States

  433,019

  Total

  7,012,398

  As regards the further information asked for, the following statements embody such particulars as are available—

  II. Statement showing the Quantity of Raw and Refined Sugar imported into the United Kingdom during the year 1907, distinguishing the principal Countries whence imported (in continuation of Table V. (A).

  (a)Imports of Unrefined Sugar.

  Country whence imported.

  Imported of Unrefined Sugar.

  Beetroot.

  Cane and other sorts.

  Total.

  Cwts.

  Cwts.

  Cwts.

  From Russia

  —

  —

  —

  From Denmark (including Faröe Islands)

  195*

  —

  195*

  From Germany

  7,964,935

  34,878

  7,999,813

  From Netherlands

  262,465

  345,638

  608,103

  Form Java

  —

  1,178,342

  1,178,342

  Form Dutch Guiana

  —

  7,038

  7,038

  Form Belgium

  622,600

  2,183

  624,783

  Form France

  192,536

  249,177

  441,713

  Form Austria-Hungary

  428,002

  —

  428,002

  Form Egypt

  —

  40,188

  40,188

  Form United States of America

  —

  238,485

  238,485

  Form Philippine Islands and Guam

  —

  229,535

  229,535

  Form Cuba

  —

  91,113

  91,113

  Form Mexico

  —

  37,363

  37,363

  Form Peru

  —

  514,575

  514,575

  Form Chile

  —

  45,459

  45,459

  Form Brazil

  —

  192,196

  192,196

  Form Argentine Republic

  —

  —

  —

  Form other Foreign Countries

  2

  134,221

  134,223

  Total from Foreign Countries

  9,470,735

  3,340,391

  12,811,126

  * Of French orgin.

  Dumping of Hops.
  MR. TIMOTHY DAVIES: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can give any official information as regards the alleged dumping of 8,000 tons and 15,000 tons of hops from the United States in this country; and will he give the quantity in tons of hops received from America in the month of April, also for the four months of this year.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) No such quantities of hops as stated in the Question have been imported into this country from the United States during the current year. The following are the quantities actually imported from the

  United States—

  Tons.

  In January, 1908

  1,414

  In February, 1908

  873

  In March, 1908

  1,470

  In April, 1908

  2,716

  Total for the four months

  6,473

  Petitions of Customs Second-Class Examining Offices.
  MR. McARTHUR: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Board of Customs have received three petitions from the examining officers, second-class (1881–8 entrants), drawing attention to the inequalities in pay and prospects of the petitioners in comparison with other entrants; whether he is aware that, at an interview on 6th November, 1907, a representative deputation complained to the Board that through a series of reorganisations the conditions of their entrance to the service had been altered to their detriment; and whether, in view of the failure of the present classification to provide satisfactory advancement for the petitioners, the Treasury will give effect to the ameliorative measures suggested by the examining officers' representatives in their recent communications with the Secretary to the Board of Customs.

  1117
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The petitions were received by the Board of Customs; but I understand that the Board discontinued their consideration of the question when a large number of officers withdrew their support from proposals which had been put forward. It is in contemplation, as announced in the Budget speech, to transfer the Excise work of the Inland Revenue to the Customs Department, and it would not now be convenient to deal with the matters at issue pending that transfer.

  New Licences.
  MR. MOND: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the total number of new licences granted since the Licensing Act of 1904; what number of such licences were granted for one year and what number for seven years; what was the amount received for monopoly value for such licences; and what was the average amount received for the monopoly value of the new licences granted annually.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) All available information on this subject will be found in Table IV. of the volumes of Licensing Statistics for the years 1905, 1906, and 1907. It appears that 165 new licences were granted and confirmed under the provisions of Section 4 of The Licensing Act, 1904. Of these, 114 were granted for one year and 10 were granted for terms of seven years. As will be seen on reference to the Tables, the amounts and the conditions of the payments taken on account of monopoly value vary so much that they cannot usefully be totalled or averaged in the manner suggested in the last two paragraphs of the Question.

  Unfunded Debt.
  MR. ASHTON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present amount of the Unfunded Debt; of what issues does it consist, and what Exchequer Bonds are now current issued for capital expenditure and classed among other capital liabilities; and what was the amount
  1118
  of the like issues at the same time last year.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Unfunded Debt at the present date amounts to £42,729,400; on the same date last year it amounted to £50,674,500, made up as follows:—

  13th May, 1907.

  13th May, 1908.

  £

  £

  Treasury Bills

  10,713,000

  12,000,000

  Exchequer Bonds

  9,961,500

  7,000,000

  War Stock and War Bonds

  30,000,000

  23,844,400

  50,674,500

  42,844,400

  The following are the Exchequer Bonds, now current, which were issued for capital expenditure, and are classed among "Other Capital Liabilities":—

  13th May, 1907.

  13th May, 1908.

  £

  £

  Exchequer Bonds under The Capital Expenditure (Money) Act, 1904

  6,000,000

  6,000,000

  Exchequer Bonds under The Cunard Agreement (Money) Act, 1904

  2,200,000

  2,600,000

  8,200,000

  8,600,000

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Admiralty Portland Cement Contracts.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any or all of the contracts for the supply of Portland cement to the Admiralty this year have yet been completed; whether all the firms and companies which have supplied cement to the Admiralty during recent years were invited to tender; if not, for what reason the omissions were made; and whether such firms or companies will be allowed to tender before the contracts are completed.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKENNA,): The contract for the supply of Portland cement to the Admiralty this year has not yet been completed. All the firms and companies which have supplied cement to the Admiralty during recent years were not invited to tender on this occasion, because the general conditions of the contract have been changed; but most of the principal manufacturers have been invited and have submitted tenders, and these are now under consideration.
  MR. COURTHOPE: What is the change in the conditions of contract? Also why was it considered necessary to omit invitation to certain firms?
  MR. McKENNA: The quantity required was so large, and in excess of what some of the firms now omitted were capable of offering. Generally speaking it was the smaller firms which were not invited.
  MR. COURTHOPE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say roughly the quantity required?
  MR. McKENNA: Not without notice.

  Rosyth Docks.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now state if Scottish or foreign granite is to be used for Rosyth docks.
  MR. McKENNA: It will not be possible to say until the contract for the construction of the works is let. When tenders for this contract are invited, the firms concerned will be asked to quote alternative prices for British or foreign stone.

  Alderney Harbour and Breakwater.
  MR. TIMOTHY DAVIES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the annual cost during the three years ended 31st March, 1908, of keeping the harbour and breakwater of Alderney in serviceable condition and repair; and what use is made of the harbour by the vessels of His Majesty's Navy.
  MR. McKENNA: The annual cost of keeping the harbour and breakwater of Alderney in serviceable condition and repair has been as follows, during the last three years:—

  £

  1905–6

  4,157.

  1906–7

  3,933.

  1907–8

  3,720 (estimated).

  Alderney is visited from time to time by His Majesty's ships, and was used as an important centre during the naval manœuvres of 1906.

  Naval Accidents.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will say whether the number of accidents to ships and other craft of war during manœuvres is on the increase, and what are the causes alleged; will he state what is the total Admiralty loss in men and money clue to accidents during manœuvres and generally for the past seven years.
  MR. McKENNA: With regard to the first part of the hon. Member's question, it may be roughly said that the number of accidents to ships during manœuvres is not on the increase, but to obtain the information accurately, a number of facts would have to he investigated and papers examined, which would occupy the Department a very considerable time. With regard to the second part of the Question, it would not be possible to assess the cash value of the total loss to the Admiralty due to such accidents, and the figures with regard to the loss in men owing to accidents generally during the past seven years are not readily available; but I will endeavour to obtain the Return on this last point if the hon. Member wishes to press for it.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the information in the form of a Return?
  MR. McKENNA: As to men I shall be happy to give it, as regards cash it would not be possible.
  MR. BOWLES: Is not this particular item asked for in the Return which stands in my name on

  1121
  the Order Paper and cannot that be granted in that form?
  MR. McKENNA: I cannot give the information as regards the cash value of the accidents. There is no means of assessing the cash damage done to individual ships.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Return actually exists at this moment, and has been moved for in several years giving this information?
  MR. McKENNA: I am dealing with the cash value, which is not included in the Return.

  Scottish Coastguard Stations.
  MR. NIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the coastguard stations in Scotland have an average coast line of 10 miles to look after, and that several of such stations are and have for two years past been 50 per cent. short of their proper complement; and whether he will take steps to bring up these stations to their proper strength without delay.
  MR. McKENNA: The total coastline in Scotland in which the fifty-six coastguard stations at present existing are stationed, is about 420 miles. Without further inquiry, it is not possible to state what extent the complements have been modified during the past two years; but since April, 1906, the total strength of the coastguard in Scotland has been reduced from 253 to 208. The numbers now borne are considered by the Admiralty adequate for the duties required.

  Coastguard Station Detachments.
  MR. NIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what coastguard stations there are in the United Kingdom, excluding detachments, whose complements have been reduced by 33 per cent. or more, either temporarily or permanently, with the names of each class respectively; and whether it is in the contemplation of the Admiralty at some future date, and approximately how soon, to have these stations filled up to their proper complements.
  1122
  I beg also to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty when the respective coastguard stations excluding detachments, whose complements have been reduced by 33 per cent. and upwards, were so reduced respectively; and whether, in the opinion of the Board of Admiralty, the continuance of these stations in their present state of reduced numbers is compatible with the efficient performance of the many important and arduous duties which devolve upon the service.
  MR. McKENNA: To answer the hon. Member's Questions fully, it would be necessary to call for Returns from all coastguard stations; but I suggest that it would be desirable to postpone these and similar Questions until the Report of the Inter-Departmental Conference promised by my right hon. friend the Lord President of the Council, has been presented to Parliament.

  Lieutenant-Colonel Baden-Powell's New- castle Lecture.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a public lecture lately delivered in Newcastle by Lieutenant-Colonel Baden-Powell of an alarmist character and couched in language likely to be offensive to a friendly Power; and whether he will do anything to restrain such utterances by senior officers in His Majesty's Army.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): I have seen General Baden-Powell. My hon. friend is mistaken in supposing that this was a public lecture. The gallant officer in question was lecturing to a uniformed meeting of the Territorial Force, and was given to understand that no reporters were present. He prefaced his remarks with a few words on the German Army in view of its special standard of efficiency, which was a natural object of attention on the part of all keen soldiers. These remarks could not be construed as in any way offensive to the German nation, and it is to be regretted that any one present should have made such a report to the papers.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the report is substantially inaccurate?
  MR. HALDANE: Yes, I asked about that. But I am told that it is just the few words at the beginning, where he introduced a comparison between the two Powers, and on which the gallant officer hung the rest of his lecture.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: Was he justified in speaking of Germany as the natural enemy of this country and in predicting a desperate and bloody war between the two countries?
  MR. HALDANE: I do not think that he said that. Certainly he did not tell me of it.

  George Ravenhill, V.C.
  MR. C. B. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is now in a position to say what action, if any, is proposed to be taken by the War Office to relieve George Ravenhill, V.C., who is, or was recently, an inmate of Erdington Workhouse, of the necessity of taking advantage of public charity.
  MR. HALDANE: The case is still under investigation. As soon as a decision has been reached, it shall be communicated to my hon. friend.

  The Army Council.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state of how many persons the Army Council consists; what is the official designation of each of its members; and how many of its members are soldiers and how many civilians.
  MR. HALDANE: The Army Council consists of seven members, viz., the Secretary of State for War, the four military members being the Chief of the General Staff, the Adjutant-General, the Quartermaster-General, and the Master-General of the Ordnance; the civil member being the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, and the finance member being the Financial Secretary to the War Office.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state, in case a difference of opinion arises among the members of the Army Council as to any matter of military policy or administration, how the decision of the Council on that matter is arrived at; is it ascertained by a vote of the majority of all its members, by a vote of the majority of the members present, or how otherwise; and, if by vote, how many votes are allotted to the Secretary of State, and how many to each of his fellow members.
  MR. HALDANE: By Order in Council the Secretary of State is made responsible to Parliament for all the business of the Army Council, and is given the power of specially reserving to himself any part of it. So far as my experience has gone there has been no difference of Opinion in the Council such as has necessitated a decision by the rather formal methods suggested by the hon. Member.
  MR. BOWLES: Has no vote ever been taken in the Army Council?
  MR. HALDANE: No, I do not think so.
  *MR. LEIF JONES: In the event of a difference of opinion between the Secretary of State and the Army Council, will the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman outweigh the opinion of the other members?
  MR. HALDANE: We do not put these constitutional things in that form. Under the terms of the Order in Council and under the terms of the Bill there is specially reserved to the Secretary of State the power of withdrawing all business from the Army Council and of apportioning any part of it he likes. The House of Commons has control over the Secretary of State.
  *MR. LEIF JONES: The question is whether the Secretary of State has ample control over the Army Council.
  MR. HALDANE: That question will be considered when it arises.

  Army Cordite.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, what weight of cordite known to contain mercuric chloride has been issued by his Department to the troops during the last twelve months.
  MR. HALDANE:The amount of cordite known to contain mercuric chloride which has been issued to the troops cannot be ascertained without reference to the various stations.

  Indian Garrison Churches.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of recent events, he will now take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, or of any independent counsel of suitable standing, as to whether the ecclesiastical law of England as to the effects of consecrating churches applies in British India, and as to whether, according to the law of British India, the fact that a Government church has been consecrated with the permission of the Government confers the exclusive right to use it for Anglican services, placing before Parliament these opinions and the reasons on which they are based.
  I beg also to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will consider the advisability of maintaining the rights of general use in any Indian garrison church which has been recently consecrated merely by permission of the Indian Government and without any undertaking as to its future use, unless and until those who claim the exclusive use of that church have established that claim in the Courts of Law.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,): I may perhaps answer these questions by referring the hon. Member to the Memorandum presented to Parliament before Easter, which gives the purport of the opinions obtained from the law officers of the Crown, and from independent counsel of standing. The Secretary of State does not think it necessary to take further legal advice, and, in view of the opinions already given, and of the considerations referred
  1126
  to in the Memorandum, he does not think it advisable to take the course suggested in the hon. Member's first Question.
  *MR. DUNDAS WHITE: Are we to understand that the advice of the law officers is to the effect that the English ecclesiastical law as to the effects of consecration applies in British India?
  MR. BUCHANAN: That is not exactly the point which was referred to the law officers. It was what was the exact legal position of the Government of India after it had allowed the consecration of the churches under the regulations which have been set forth.
  *MR. DUNDAS WHITE: Will the right hon. Member take steps to ask the opinion on the question whether that ecclesiastical law applies in British India?
  MR. BUCHANAN: No, I do not think we can ask the law officers for an opinion on that somewhat general question.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India, how many Indian Government churches have been consecrated since 1st January, 1901, stating in each case the place of the church, the date of the consecration, whether that consecration was effected at the request or merely with the permission of the Indian Government, and, in view, of the reference to private subscriptions in the recent memorandum, whether private subscriptions for the building or maintenance of the church had been asked from and received from Presbyterians and other non-Anglicans; and whether in the applications for these subscriptions it was stated that the church was to be used exclusively for Anglican services.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I understand the hon. Member's Question to apply to Government churches at military stations. Of these three have been consecrated since 1st January, 1901, viz., at Ranikhet, at Jhansi, and at Cherat. At the first and last-named of these places the churches had been built, with the aid of private funds, before the decision not to allow

  1127
  any more garrison churches to be consecrated was arrived at; and at both of these places unconsecrated churches are now being built. At Jhansi a consecrated church already existed, and when the new church was consecrated, the old church was made over for the use of non-Anglican Protestants. In all these cases the churches were consecrated with the permission, and not at the request, of Government. The Government of India have no information as to the denomination to which the subscribers belonged, nor as to the statements made by those who applied for subscriptions.

  Rifle Shooting in the Colonies.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary for the Colonies what grants are made by Colonial Governments to rifle associations and other organisations for the encouragement of rifle shooting.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,): The information required by the hon. Member is not easily put within the limits of an ordinary answer, but if he will move for a return the Secretary of State will be happy to have it prepared.

  Trinidad—East Indian Immigrants.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the cost to the Colony of Trinidad of prosecutions of East Indian indentured immigrants in cases of felony and murders for the years 1905–6–7–8; and also the number of such immigrants convicted and acquitted for the same period.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Secretary of State has just received from the officer administering the Government of Trinidad a statement showing the prosecutions of East Indian immigrants for breaches of the Immigration Ordinance and offences against the ordinary law for the two years, ended 30th June last, as suggested in the hon. Member's Question of 17th July. A copy of this statement will be sent to the hon. Member. The cost of prosecution in these cases is borne by the Government, but, as it is dis-
  1128
  tributed amongst several Departments, and is, to some extent, of an indirect character, the actual cost cannot be ascertained with any degree of accuracy.
  *MR. REES: Is there anything in such statistics as are available to show that these indentured immigrants are other than law-abiding citizens?
  COLONEL SEELY: I am afraid that is a general Question I cannot answer.
  *MR. REES: I will put it down.

  Trinidad Sugar Industry.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the exact quantity of sugar on which duty has been paid by sugar planters of Trinidad employing indentured East Indian immigrants towards the reimbursement of expenses for their collection and introduction during the years 1905, 1906, and 1907; the exact quantity of cane cultivated by cane farmers and sold during these years to sugar factories in which such immigrants are employed; and whether separate accounts are kept in such factories of the quantity of sugar manufactured and exported, and an account given to the local Government of such portion in which indentured labour is not employed.
  COLONEL SEELY: Duty is only imposed on sugar exported from Trinidad. The revenue derived from the sugar tax has been: in 1904–5, £19,543; in 1905–6, £15,009; in 1906–7, £16,873. The further information asked for by the hon. Member cannot be obtained except from the individual planters, but no account of the nature indicated by the hon. Member is, so far as the Secretary of State is aware, given to the Colonial Government.
  *MR. REES: Can it be maintained that the planters do not contribute their fair share to the revenue? Is it not on their industry that the prosperity of the island is chiefly dependent?
  COLONEL SEELY: That is another Question I cannot answer off-hand.
  *MR. REES: I will put it down.

  East Indian Coolies in Jamaica.
  MR. SUMMER BELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has received from the annual assembly of the Jamaica Baptist Union a communication protesting against the continued introduction of East Indian indentured coolies into Jamaica, and pointing out that the labouring and small settler classes, who contribute the bulk of the revenue of the Colony, are unable to obtain regular and paying employment on the sugar estates and fruit plantations, and are, therefore, under the necessity of emigrating to Central America and other places to seek work, and that thereby a great injustice is done to these classes and the island generally in taxing them to introduce East Indians to compete with the superabundant labour market of the country; and, if so, can he state whether it is the intention of the Government to restrict the introduction of such coolies, and to place the entire cost of the same on the planters requiring such labour.
  COLONEL SEELY: The petition has been received. The Secretary of State has had an opportunity of communicating with the Governor, and Lord Crewe is not prepared, at any rate at the present, to disturb or vary an arrangement which recently received the approval of the Legislative Council by a vote of twenty to two, and my hon. friend will, of course, understand that the Secretary of State is not prepared to admit the accuracy of all the statements in the Memorial from the Jamaica Baptist Union.
  *MR. LUPTON: Did not the late Charles Kingsley state that all the East Indian coolies whom he saw in Trinidad had the manners of ladies and gentleman?
  The reply was inaudible.

  Dr. Lane Sansom.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the record of service of Dr. C. Lane Sansom in the Transvaal; what positions has he held during the last seven years; what
  1130
  pension or compensation has been granted him; and whether employment will be found for him in the Colonial service or in some Department of State in this country.
  COLONEL SEELY: Dr. Sansom was appointed to be District Medical Officer of Health for the Witwatersrand on 16th November, 1901, at a salary which was latterly fixed at £1,200 a year, with a horse allowance of £180, and he held that appointment until recently. He was also medical officer of the Foreign Labour Department. I am not aware on what terms he left the Transvaal service, but the post was not pensionable. The Secretary of State has had a note made of Dr. Sansom's name, and it is hoped that some suitable opportunity may present itself of offering him some employment.

  Medical Inspection of Transvaal Natives.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether anyone has been appointed to take the position of Superintendent or Controller of the Native Health Department for the Transvaal, from which Dr. C. Lane Sansom was lately retrenched; and whether, in view of the results produced by Dr. Sansom in reducing native mortality and in bettering the condition of the natives in the mines, this Government is satisfied that the abolition of his appointment, made upon grounds of economy, is in the best interests of that native population for whose well-being, under the constitution of the Transvaal, it is directly responsible.
  COLONEL SEELY: I am not aware of the arrangements which the Transvaal Government have made or propose to make in consequence of Dr. Sansom's retrenchment, but I have no reason to suppose that the Transvaal will fail to maintain a high standard of administration, and, therefore, trust that the health of the natives will receive no less attention than during Dr. Sansom's tenure of office.
  LORD R. CECIL: Will the Government, in view of the special obligations resting upon them in

  1131
  respect to native labour, make inquiries what the Transvaal Government intend to do?
  COLONEL SEELY: The Secretary of State has made inquiries, and it is for that reason I have been able to make the statement contained in the last part of my Answer.
  MR. FELL: Is there any doctor at present attending to the natives?
  COLONEL SEELY: Yes; the district doctors are in attendance. Dr. Sansom had general supervision. May I here add that the Colonial Office and the Transvaal Government fully appreciate the excellent services which be rendered?

  Transvaal New Gold Law.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the Transvaal Government Gazette Extraordinary of 30th March, 1908, containing the draft of the new Gold Law of that Colony, and particularly to Sections 127 and 128; and whether the effect of the proposed new law will be to deprive coloured persons, including British-Indians, of the right they now possess to trade and reside in the mining districts of Johannesburg, Boxburg, and Krugersdorp, and compel them to remove for both trade and residence into compounds, locations, or bazaars.
  COLONEL SEELY: Yes, sir. I do not think that the law will deprive Indians of the rights which they now possess, but the Secretary of State is communicating with the Governor with regard to these clauses.

  The Sugar Duty.
  MR. GIBBS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that many merchants have heavy stocks of sugar on which duty has already been paid, he can extend the time to 1st June.
  MR. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg at the same time to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if his
  1132
  attention has been drawn to the hardships which will be incurred by many traders in sugar owing to his proposal that rebate on duty-paid stocks of sugar unsold on the 18th instant will not be allowed; if he is aware that in consequence of insufficient accommodation for bonding duties have already been paid on large quantities of sugar which otherwise would have remained in bond; whether, under the circumstances, he can prolong the period of ten days, or else allow a drawback Upon stocks held on the 18th of this month; and whether he would be prepared to receive representations on the subject from the traders affected.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): I have undertaken to receive representations this afternoon on the subject both from those who desire a postponement of the date at which the reduced duty comes into force and from those who deprecate such a course.
  MR. WATTasked whether those dealers who had sugar in bond would get a rebate, but that there would be no rebate on stock in the warehouses.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is so.
  MR. FELLasked whether manufacturers who held large stocks of preserves made by duty-paid sugar would have their case considered.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Their case is being considered.

  Old-age Pensions.
  MR. LEVERTON HARRIS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a person who is in receipt of an annuity or pension from a friendly society or insurance company, which will bring up his total income to over £26 a year, will be excluded from participating in the proposed scheme of old-age pensions.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, sir.
  MR. SOARES: Will the Old-Age Pension Bill be introduced before Whitsuntide?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That Question should be addressed to the Prime Minister.

  Fraudulent Traders.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will say whether the Police Gazette contains a list of firms which have been connected with fraudulent transactions or are specially noted in the Gazette for exceptional police attention; and will he supply a list of the names and location of these firms.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLAD-STONE,): A list of firms concerning whose methods many complaints have been received is published annually in the Police Gazette for the information of police forces. The information this Gazette supplies is strictly confidential and privileged, and there would be grave objections to publishing it.

  Danish Tariff.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the House any information with regard to the reductions about to be made in the Danish tariff; and whether he will issue a Memorandum comparing the duties levied on important articles of British manufacture by Denmark under the new tariff with the duties levied upon British goods of the same class by Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): A copy of the new Danish tariff has just been received and it is hoped to issue a translation of it, comparing the new and former duties, very shortly. As the main portions of the other tariffs mentioned have already been published in the Colonial Import Duties Return (Cd. 3708 of 1907), my hon. friend will be able to make for himself the comparison which he suggests, without the aid of an official Memorandum.

  Port of London Bill.
  MR. SEAVERNS: I beg to ask the President of the Board
  1134
  of Trade if he is aware that in the debate on the Second Reading of the Port of London Bill no expression of views was given by those representing importers, exporters, and manufacturers, upon whom the entire financial burden of improving the port is to fall; whether he will see that these interests are represented upon the Joint Committee appointed to consider the Bill; and whether he will consider the advisability of placing a portion of the burden upon other interests which are equally to profit by the improvement of the port.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I think that some of those who took part in the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill represented directly or indirectly those who will under the Bill contribute to the funds of the port authority. It would not be possible, even were it expedient, to attempt to give representation on the Joint Committee to the different interests likely to be affected by the Bill. The Committee will no doubt give due consideration to any evidence which may be submitted to them on behalf of such interests.

  Enlistment of Chinese Crews.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will cause instructions to be issued to the officers of the Board of Trade to prevent Chinese boarding-house keepers from having access to Board of Trade premises for the purpose of supplying crews of Chinamen to British ships; whether he is aware that it has been the practice for many years to prevent British seamen and others from using the waiting-rooms of Mercantile Marine Offices unless they can produce certificates of discharges to prove that they are bona fide seamen; and whether he will cause this rule to be stringently applied to Chinamen in the same manner that it is applied to other seamen.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Chinese boarding-house keepers are not and will not be allowed access to the Board of Trade premises for the purpose of supplying crews of Chinamen. Any case in which sufficient evidence is available of a boarding-house keeper having supplied

  1135
  a crew, Chinese or otherwise, would be considered with the view to legal proceedings being taken under Sections 111 or 112 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. I have no knowledge of the practice referred to in the second part of my hon. friend's Question. The waiting-rooms of Mercantile Marine Offices are open to all persons desiring to obtain employment on board merchant ships whether they produce certificates of discharge or not. Loafers or undesirable persons are of course liable to be excluded.
  MR. CROOKS: This reply is very important. Will the right hon. Gentleman have it put in all the shipping offices?
  MR. CHURCHILL: No doubt having been given in this House it will obtain wide publicity.

  Poplar Mercantile Marine Office.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the excitement which prevailed amongst British seamen at the Mercantile Marine Office, Poplar, on Saturday and Sunday, in consequence of the owners of the steamships "Zambesi" and "Strathness" endeavouring to ship crews of Chinamen; whether he is aware that the Chinamen in question were unable to pass the language test as required by the Merchant Shipping Act; whether it has been brought to his notice that, when Chinese crews are being signed on, duly qualified and independent interpreters are not provided by the owners; whether he is aware that these crews are being found by well-known Chinese crimps; and what action, if any, does the Board of Trade intend to take to put an end to these practices.
  MR. CHURCHILL: My attention has been called to disturbances at Poplar on Saturday and Monday last in connection with the proposal to engage Chinese crews for the steamships "Zambesi" and "Strathness." I understand that it is the case that the leading seaman No. 1 was unable to pass the language test. There is no legal obligation on owners to provide interpreters, but care
  1136
  is taken by the superintendent that the various clauses in the articles of agreement are explained to the seamen by some person competent to do so before they are engaged. I have nothing before me to prove that the crews in the cases referred to by my hon. friend were supplied by Chinese crimps; but if any evidence of an infringement of Sections 111 or 112 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, is forthcoming the question of instituting legal proceedings will be considered. I may add that the recent unusual increase in the number of Chinese seamen shipped in United Kingdom ports requires and is receiving prompt and searching attention, and must be regarded as a matter of serious concern.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Merchant Shipping Act provides that the articles of agreement shall be read over to each seaman, and that it is the duty of the superintendent to see that each man understands the agreement? Is he aware that No. 1 leading fireman and No. 1 leading seaman were absolutely unable to explain the agreement, and will he see that proper and competent interpreters are present when Chinamen are engaged?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I can hardly pledge myself to any statement as to facts with which I am not familiar, but I can assure the hon. Member the law will certainly be enforced.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received any Report from the police authorities with regard to the disturbances which have occurred at the Mercantile Marine Office, Poplar, in consequence of the contemplated engagement of crews of Chinamen for the steamship "Zambesi" and "Strathness"; if he can state the number of inspectors and policemen who were on duty in this connection; whether he is aware that the police prevented British seamen from having access to the waiting-room of the Mercantile Marine Office, whilst the Chinamen were freely admitted; and whether he can state who gave the

  1137
  police instructions to prevent British sailors from using this waiting-room.
  MR. GLADSTONE: One sergeant and six constables were on duty at the Board of Trade Office, Poplar, on Monday afternoon; and this number was increased owing to the gathering of a considerable crowd, to three inspectors, two sergeants, and thirty constables, in order to enable the police to maintain order. At the request of the superintendent at the Mercantile Marine Office, the police secured admission to the office for nineteen Chinamen who were desirous of signing on. The police did not knowingly prevent any British seamen who had business there from going into the waiting-room, but in such a case there must always be some difficulty in distinguishing individuals who are there on business from the rest of a large crowd.

  Llandaff Council School.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education when the notice under Section 8 of the Education Act, 1902, was given in respect of the proposed council school at Llandaff, and what were its terms; whether the proposed school is to be provided on the ground that it is necessary; and, if so, why a grant is being made towards it from the £100,000 voted for new schools last year.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): Notice was given by the local education authority on 31st July, 1905, to provide two new public elementary schools at Llandaff and Llandaff Yard for the areas within three miles thereof and with accommodation for 560 and 215 children respectively. The Board have sanctioned a school for 300 children being provided at Llandaff on the ground that such a school is, in their opinion, necessary within the meaning of Section 9 of the Education Act, 1902. No building grant will be paid in respect of those school places which the local education authority would, in any case, be under a statutory obligation to provide.
  MR. COURTHOPE: Are we to understand that no grant has been made?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I replied that no grant would be paid in respect of those school places which the local education authority would in any case be under a statutory obligation to provide.
  LORD ROBERT CECIL: Was notice given in 1905 in respect of two schools, and is the legal adviser of the Education Department of opinion that that notice was a good notice in respect of the provision of one school of a very different character and much smaller scope?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I do not know that it is of a different character. The advice given is that the notice for the schools covers the case of the one school to which a grant is being made.
  MR. COURTHOPE: Do not the regulations preclude the spending of any of that money on schools like these?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I have said that no portion of the grant will be in respect of school places which the local education authority are under an obligation to provide.
  LORD ROBERT CECIL: And how many places are they under an obligation to provide?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I must ask for notice of that Question.
  MR. COURTHOPE: Did not the right hon. Gentleman inform us that the school was considered to be necessary?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I have said so. I do not think the hon. Member realises that while the school is considered necessary no grant will be made in respect of places which the local authority must provide.

  Single School Parishes.
  SIR GEORGE WHITE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he will publish, uniform with the List of Public Elementary Schools in Single-School Parishes (Cd. 3990), a list of schools in parishes where there is only one public elementary school available for boys, or for girls, or for infants, but which are not single-school parishes as defined by

  1139
  Section 3 of the Elementary Education (England and Wales) Bill, 1908, because the departments for boys, girls, or infants are in separate buildings and are recognised by the Board of Education as separate schools.
  I beg also to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he will publish, in continuation of the List of Public Elementary Schools in Single-School Parishes (Cd. 3990), a similar list of schools which would be in single school parishes as defined by Section 3 of the Elementary Education (England and Wales) Bill, 1908, but for the fact that the parish is an urban district or municipal borough, and therefore technically is not a rural parish as mentioned in that section.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir; I am having Papers prepared giving the information asked for in these Questions, so far as the Board are able to supply it, and they will be laid on the Table as soon as possible.

  Queen Mary's Grammar School, Walsall.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he has any control over the methods of punishment adopted at Queen Mary's Grammar School, Walsall; whether he is aware that one form of punishment is flogging; and, seeing that this form of punishment is prohibited in the Army and Navy and is only allowed in His Majesty's prisons and that then the infliction is administered to criminals, he proposes to take steps to secure more humane methods by those responsible for the above school.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The system of discipline, including the methods adopted for enforcing it, is one of the matters which is considered by the Board in determining as to the efficiency of the school. I think the hon. Member will find that prisons are not the only institutions in this country in which corporal punishment is permitted and I have no reason to suppose that the conduct of Queen Mary's Grammar School is wanting in humanity. As I have previously stated, the facts before the Board do not appear to call for any action on their part.
  *MR. REES: With reference to the statement that corporal punishment is only allowed in prisons, may I ask if it is not only allowed, but is even popular, except with the immediate recipient, in English public schools.
  MR. LUPTON: Is it not the fact that in University College School and in most of the best managed public schools in England corporal punishment is not used?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Wages on Post Office Building Contracts.
  MR. CLYNES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that men are employed in connection with the new sorting warehouse, Newton Street, Manchester, doing the work of concretors at 6½d. and less per hour; whether the rules of the Master Builders' Association in the district provide for the payment of 8d. per hour for such work as the men named are engaged on; and, if so, can some step be taken to bring the contractor within the scope of the fair contracts regulations and secure for the workmen the recognised rates of pay.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,): I have been giving careful attention to this matter, and cannot find that the working rules for the district provide for the payment of 8d. per hour for such work as these men are doing, which is ordinary work similar to that usually carried out by labourers in connection with concrete floors and does not involve special or skilled labour of concretors properly so called. I do not see any reason to interfere, as the men are undoubtedly being paid the full wages current in the district for work of this kind.
  MR. CLYNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rules of the Masons' Society provide for the employment of skilled labour on this work?
  MR. HARCOURT: Not on this particular form of concrete work.

  Cattle Importing Industry.
  MR. BOWERMAN: I beg to ask the President of, the Board of Trade whether his attention, has been called to the fact that in 1907, 93,410 less cattle than in 1905 were imported for slaughter into Great Britain from North America, and 20,824 less during the four months ended 30th April, 1908, compared with the same period in 1907; whether he is aware that consequently the supply of hides and offals of freshly-slaughtered animals used as raw material in many manufactures has very seriously decreased, to the detriment of British trade, to the loss of work and wages of thousands of British workmen, and to the rise in prices to the consumer of all commodities affected; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the remedies for increasing the supplies of hides, offals, and freshly-killed meat of imported foreign animals, with especial reference to the plan for establishing a foreign animals wharf and abattoir in the Island of Alderney, and to the advisability of relaxing the restrictions now placed on the landing at the foreign animals wharves at Deptford and Birkenhead of all animals except those from North America.
  THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY,): My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this question. We are aware of the decrease in the importation of cattle from North America in 1907 as compared with 1905. On the other hand there has been an increase in the quantity of hides imported in 1907 as compared with 1905 by some 92,000 cwts. As regards prices we have no statistics, but we understand that the price of hides has declined considerably during the last four months. No special inquiry into these questions appears to be necessary.

  Imports of Meat.
  MR. BOWERMAN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Markets' Committee of the Corporation of the City of London, in which it is stated that fewer live cattle are coming from Canada and the United States, causing a reduction
  1142
  in the quantity of freshly-killed meat, Which is made up by increased importations of preserved and frozen products, and lessening the circulation of wages in the meat-producing and kindred industries; and whether he will cause independent inquiry to be made as to relaxing the regulations of the Board with regard to the landing of animals for slaughter in Great Britain, and as to other methods of increasing, with due regard to the safety of native flocks and herds, the supply of freshly-killed meat to British markets.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Our attention has been called to the Report to which my hon. friend refers, but as there is no evidence to show that the meat supplies of the people are in any way curtailed by the existing law affecting the importation of cattle there seems to be no necessity for the institutions of an inquiry as suggested.

  Glasgow Typhoid Fever Epidemic.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to an epidemic of typhoid fever in Kelvinside, Glasgow; whether this outbreak has been traced to the selling of milk from a farm where there was a typhoid patient; at what date did his Department or the local authority become aware of these facts; on what date was the first action taken to stop the sale of milk from that farm; and whether, in view of the number of deaths that have resulted he will issue instructions which will in future prevent delays between the knowledge of the facts and the action resulting from them.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): I have made inquiry and have been informed by the Local Government Board that the source of infection in the earlier cases was traced—not to a typhoid patient, but to a healthy woman, who had had typhoid fever sixteen years ago, and was still capable of spreading the disease, thus acting as a "carrier" case. This woman was employed on a farm, but her condition was not discovered until some weeks after the beginning of the outbreak. The first notification was received by

  1143
  the city authorities on 17th December, and two others followed on 18th and 19th. On the last-mentioned date a large milk supply was suspected in Glasgow, and on the following day one of the sources of supply was reported to the county medical officer for inquiry. The farm was visited on Saturday, 21st December, by the assistant medical officer, who found a dairy worker being treated for pneumonia. The time between this date and the 24th was fully occupied in completing a very difficult diagnosis, with the result that the case was found to be one of typhoid fever complicated with pneumonia. This patient, to whose illness some of the later cases in the city were due, was removed as soon as typhoid symptoms were detected to hospital on the evening of 24th December, and the premises were disinfected. For some days the milk was sterilised by the city dairyman, who then ceased taking Milk from the farm. The milk however, was sold in another dairy in Glasgow without any bad result. The difficulty, therefore, in controlling this short epidemic was due mainly to (1st) the impossibility of discovering, without prolonged investigation, typhoid germs in the healthy woman; and (2nd) the complications involved in ascertaining the true nature of the illness of the patient removed to hospital on 24th. But once the disease and infection were recognised, and the patient removed to hospital, there was no need to stop the milk supply. The facts show that the city and county authorities conducted their investigations with promptitude, and that no delay occurred between the knowledge of the facts and the action resulting from them, and, accordingly, I see no ground for issuing instructions to any of the authorities concerned.

  Cattle-Drives in Ireland—Tuam, Mitchels- town, Delvin, and Loughrea.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that cattle-drives took place on Sunday, 3rd May last, from the farm of Mr. Robert Blake, Ballyglunin Park, Tuam, from the grass farms of Moyne, belonging to Mr. R. W. Waithman, and of Mullaghmore, owned by Mr. O'Rorke, as well as from other farms in the neigh-
  1144
  bourhood; whether numerous droves of horses, cattle, and sheep were found on the road from Tuam to Moylough, making it almost impassable for vehicular traffic, on Monday morning, 4th May, from the farm of Mr. O. C. Donelan, Sylane, near Tuam, on the same date from the lands of Southill, Mitchelstown, and Robinstown, Delvin district of County Westmeath, when 200 head were driven, and on Tuesday, 5th May, from Gralla Farm, near Loughrea; how many arrests were made in each case, and can the police attribute any motives for the outrages; whether he can make a statement as to what steps, if any, the Government intend to take to meet the very grave state of affairs which at present exists; and whether he will lay the whole facts before the Cabinet, with a view to bringing into force the Crimes Act.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,: The cattle-drives referred to in the Question took place on the several days from 1st to 5th May. In all, 104 persons were arrested, of whom 88 have been bound over to keep the peace, and the proceedings against the remaining 16 are pending. The question of taking proceedings against other persons in connection with these cases is under consideration. In reply to a Question put by the hon. and gallant Member on 7th instant, I stated the steps which are being taken to protect the persons and property of those who are affected by the agitation against the grazing system. The reply to the concluding inquiry of the Question is in the negative.

  Alleged Incendiarism at Elphin.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Peter O'Ryan's stables, Carrowreagh, near Elphin, County Roscommon, were burned to the ground on Sunday, 3rd May last; whether the police reports attribute the outbreak to incendiarism, and, if so, can they give any reason for the outrage.
  MR. BIRRELL: Mr. O'Ryan's out-houses were burnt down on the date mentioned. A man has been arrested

  1145
  upon the charge of arson, and the case is pending.

  Ballintubber Cattle-Drive.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an extensive cattle-drive took place on Sunday morning, 3rd May last, at Knockalaghla, near Ballintubber, five miles from Castlerea, county Roscommon; can he state how far from the farm the cattle were when discovered by the police, and in what condition; can the police attribute any reason for the outrage; and how many arrests have been made.
  MR. BIRRELL: Eight head of cattle and thirty-three sheep were driven off this farm during the night of 2nd May. The cattle were found about three miles away and were taken back to the farm. None of them had sustained any visible injury; but one cow which was in calf appeared to be in pain. The police cannot say what the motive for the offence may have been. No arrests have been made.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture said some time ago that cattle-driving did no harm to man or beast?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Mr. J. W. Leahy's Aghatubrid Estate.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the actual terms of the purchase agreement entered into between the late Mr. J. W. Leahy and his Aghatubrid estate tenants on 8th January, 1907; whether he is aware that the tenants have fulfilled their side of the agreement, but that since the death of Mr. Leahy all efforts to have the purchase agreement carried into effect have been blocked by the new agent of the estate; can he state how many communications have passed between the agent and the Estates Commissioners on the subject of the completion of the sale; and whether, in view
  1146
  of the fact that by the terms of the agreement the fixing of the purchase price was left unconditionally in the hands of the Estates Commissioners, he will now state what further steps will be taken by the Estates Commissioners.
  To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state what answer has been received by the Estates Commissioners from the agent of the estate of the late Mr. J. W. Leahy, at Aghatubrid, near Cahirciveen, with reference to the purchase negotiations; whether the terms of the agreement signed by the late Mr. Leahy, and the hon. Member for South Kerry, acting on behalf of the tenants, will now be carried into effect by Mr. Leahy's representatives; and what steps have been taken by the Estates Commissioners since this House adjourned for the Easter Recess.
  MR. BIRRELL: The agreement arrived at between the late Mr. Leahy and his tenants can scarcely be described as a purchase agreement. The agreement was that the prices to be paid by the tenants were to be left to the decision of the Estates Commissioners, but, as I have already explained to the hon. Member, the death of the owner led to a suspension of the negotiations. The Estates Commissioners have made four communications to the agent or solicitor of the present owner with reference to the completion of the sale. No reply has yet been received from the agent to the Commissioners' last letter asking for a definite reply to the question whether the present owner is prepared to continue proceedings for sale at their estimated price. The Commissioners, however, understand that Canon O'Riordan, who is interested on behalf of the tenants, has received a letter from the agent to the effect that he is advising the present owner to accept the price offered by the Estates Commissioners.

  Illiterates in Ireland.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in calculating the percentages of illiteracy in Ireland, officially

  1147
  given to the public in every Census Report, every child of five years old and upwards is counted as an illiterate if unable to read and write, and that this age limit, adopted on the authority of the Census Commissioners of 1841, has been continued in every census since that time; why, having regard to the fact that according to the compulsory clauses of the Irish Education Act of 1892 six years is the age at which children are bound to attend school, is every child who happens to be five years old on the day of the census entered as illiterate if unable to read and write; and whether, inasmuch as this age limit for illiteracy is calculated to convey an erroneous impression, the Census Commissioners will be directed in their next Census Report to adopt ten years as the limit of age for illiteracy, or if it be judged desirable to keep, for the purposes of comparison with former Census Returns, the percentage of illiteracy on the old lines of five years old and upwards, will directions be given to the Census Commissioners to furnish a new column, giving the percentage of illiteracy on a new basis of counting only the population ten years of age and upwards.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am informed that the fact is as stated in the first part of the Question. I agree that the classification of illiterates at the last census in Ireland appears to have been somewhat anomalous. It would be premature to give instructions upon the subject at present, but the matter will receive attention when the next Census Act, and the instructions to be issued thereunder, are being dealt with.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that since 1841 the percentages of illiteracy in Ireland have been officially given to the public in every Census Report, but that no corresponding percentages of illiteracy have been published by the Census Commissioners of England and Scotland; why, having regard to the desirability of an official record of the state of education in Ireland as regards illiteracy, has a similar information of the state of education in England and Scotland as regards illiteracy been
  1148
  withheld from the public; and what is the reason that the favour extended to Ireland in having an official record of illiteracy is not conferred on England and Scotland.
  MR. BIRRELL: I have no information as to the reasons why an educational census has not been taken in England and Scotland. I understand that the census for Great Britain is conducted under the supervision of my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board, to whom the hon. and learned Member should address his inquiry.

  Police Costs for Cattle Drives.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the cost of car hire for conveying extra police to and fro in connection with cattle-driving and other agrarian outrages is charged to the county concerned; and, if so, what has been the charge under this head for the various disturbed counties during January, February, March, and April of this year respectively.
  MR. BIRRELL: The cost of conveying extra police is borne by the Constabulary Vote. Under the statutes governing the matter, local authorities are charged for extra police according to the average cost of the entire force, and independently of the distance from which the particular extra force may come.
  AN HON. MEMBERasked if there was any real advantage in drafting a large force of police from one part of the country to another in connection with cattle drives, and if it would not be better when damage was done for the graziers to claim compensation, to have the amount assessed by arbitration, and the sum awarded to be paid by the county concerned?
  MR. BIRRELL: I should like to have notice of that Question; it is a very difficult problem.

  Cattle-Drives and the Universities Bill.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any instructions have

  1149
  been issued by the executive to the effect that in cases of cattle-driving and other agrarian offences where arrests are made, that the prisoners are only to be bound over to keep the peace and not to be more severely dealt with pending the passage through this House of the Irish Universities Bill; and whether he will now adopt more stringent methods to vindicate the law in Ireland and secure the lives and property of law-abiding persons.
  MR. BIRRELL: No, Sir.

  Midleton (County Cork) Shooting Outrage
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has information respecting a shooting outrage at the house of a farmer at Rathcanning, near Midleton, county Cork, on the 4th instant; and whether any arrests have been made in connection with the occurrence.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: May I also ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the dwelling-house of a farmer named William Colbert, of Rathcanning, near Midleton, County Cork, was fired into on Tuesday, 5th May last; whether the police evidence goes to show that injury was intended to the sleeping inmates or whether the direction of the shot merely indicates an intention to intimidate; and what steps have been taken to bring the perpetrators to justice.
  MR. BIRRELL: The house of William Colbert was fired into on the night of 4th May. The greater part of the charge, which consisted of small shot, struck the outside wall of the house near the window, and only three pellets of shot went through the window. The facts elicited by the police point to the conclusion that intimidation and not personal injury to the inmates was intended. No arrest has been made. The police are using all possible efforts to discover the offender.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the district in which this took place is a very quiet and peaceable district?
  MR. BIRRELL: I believe it bears that general character.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Does not the definition of quiet and peacable depend on the political views of the man who uses the term?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Killarney Labourers Cottage Scheme.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the labourers cottage inquiry finished in Killarney on 17th January, 1908, and the inspector's Report was due on 17th February, but that the same has not been received yet, which means that the cottages cannot be built this year, as, when the Report comes down, there is a month for appeal, and between the arbitration and the three weeks notice of sitting that would take till 1st September, and a contractor cannot be got to do the work in the winter; and whether steps will be taken to have the inspector's Report sent on at once.
  MR. BIRRELL: Copies of the inspector's order were despatched by the Local Government Board to the district council on 7th May. There was no avoidable delay in the matter. The scheme was a large one, embracing 370 cottages and plots and fifty-six additional allotments.

  Loughrea Disturbances.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a report of the riotous proceedings at Loughrea on Friday last; how many times had the police to charge the crowd with batons; and what was the cause of these disturbances.
  MR. BIRRELL: On Friday last, 8th May, a large number of trespassing cattle which had been driven on to a grazing farm at Aille were removed by the owner under police protection and impounded at Loughrea. A large crowd assembled in the evening and attacked the police with stones and bottles, and some of the men were struck.

  1151
  The police thereupon charged the crowd with their batons which, as I am informed, they used freely. There was only one baton charge, which lasted until the mob was dispersed and the streets cleared.

  Ballinasloe Disturbance.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received particulars of an assault committed by a crowd of men upon a farmer named Dolan and his two boys, near Ballinasloe; whether he is aware of the reason for this attack; whether any policemen were present; and how were they treated by the crowd.
  MR. BIRRELL: On the morning of 4th May a party of men were driving cattle off the farm of Martin Dolan, when the owner and his two sons opposed the drivers, and blows were exchanged. Two policemen were present. Five of the offenders were arrested at the time and twenty-one were arrested subsequently, and all of these, except one, a youth, have been bound over to keep the peace. Proceedings against other persons are pending. No attack was made upon the police.

  Irish Grazing Lands.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state how many acres of grazing land have been purchased by the Estates Commissioners during the past fifteen months for division among the applicants for small holdings; in how many cases had cattle been driven off these lands; and how many persons who have shared in the division of the lands are known to have taken an active part in cattle-driving.
  MR. BIRRELL: During the past fifteen months the Estates Commissioners have purchased 38,500 acres of untenanted land which has been used for the enlargement of existing holdings or the creation of new holdings. The Commissioners are not aware of any case in which cattle had been driven off any of the lands so purchased by them, and they have no knowledge that any of the per-
  1152
  sons to whom allotments were given had taken part in cattle-driving.
  MR. LONSDALE: Does the right hon. Gentleman adhere to the promise he gave to a deputation on 13th December last that persons who took part in cattle-drives should be considered unsuitable tenants for these grazing lands?
  MR. BIRRELL: Certainly.

  Woodquay Cattle-Drive.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that sixteen men, charged at Tuam with having driven the cattle of Patrick Newall off his farm at Woodquay, admitted the offence; whether these men were in negotiation for the sale of this farm; and whether, in accordance with the pledge that persons who have taken part in cattle-driving will not be permitted to share in the distribution of lands, he will draw the attention of the Estates Commissioners to the fact that these men are disqualified.
  MR. BIRRELL: It is the fact that the sixteen persons who were charged with having driven cattle off the farm in question admitted the offence. These persons, who were mostly boys, were not in negotiation for the purchase of the farm. I have referred the hon. Member's Question to the Estates Commissioners, who inform me that they cannot identify the matter as one in which proceedings for sale have been instituted before them.

  Lismonaghan Labourer's Cottage.
  MR. C. MACVEIGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been called to the application of James Deveney, of Lismonaghan, Letterkenny Union, county Donegal, Ireland, and for whom the rural district council selected a site for a labourer's cottage on the farm of Robert Wylie, of Carrygauley, which site was visited and approved by the Local Government Board inspector during an inquiry held in Letterkenny in November, 1907; whether he is aware that the farmer, Wylie, brought an action against Deveney at Quarter

  1153
  Sessions, which was defended by the rural council, and Judge Cook gave Deveney the site by giving judgment in his favour; if he can state why the arbitrator, in the face of the approval of the inspector and the judgment of the Court, has failed or refused to give the site to Deveney; and will he direct that steps be taken to provide a cottage for this man.
  MR. BIRRELL: The facts are substantially as stated in the Question. The arbitrator referred to was, however, appointed merely to determine the compensation to be paid for the plots against the taking of which no petitions had been presented. The particular site in question is the subject of an opposed order, and in this case an arbitrator must be separately appointed unless the council and the parties concerned can come to terms as to the amount of compensation. In the opinion of the Local Government Board such a settlement should be feasible upon the lines of the arbitrator's reward in the unopposed cases.

  Finvoy Afforestation Dispute.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say if any complaints have reached the police as to the injury to trees on a plantation at Finvoy, near Ballymoney, County Antrim; whether he can state the names and addresses of the landlord and of the lessee; and whether notice has been given of any claim for compensation.
  MR. BIRRELL: It was reported to the police on 24th April that about 300 trees in a plantation at Finvoy had been damaged by having holes bored in them. Five of the trees were shattered by explosion. The landlord is Mr. Edward Cole Magennis, of Boyle, county Roscommon, and the occupying tenant is Bryce Beattie. The trees had been sold by the landlord to an English firm, who had resold a portion of them to a local buyer. The purchasers have lodged claims for compensation amounting to £90.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if this Mr. Edward
  1154
  Cole Magennis is the man who some months ago alleged that his house had been attacked by a band of moonlighters, and that when inquiry was made, at the instance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, it was reported that no outrage had taken place and that the shots had been fired from inside the house?
  MR. BIRRELL: There is a similarity of names, I confess.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local authorities in County Antrim will have to resist this man's claim, and will he therefore consider the desirability of giving them a complete biographical sketch of Mr. Edward Cole Magennis?
  MR. BIRRELL: I expect they know all about him.
  AN HON. MEMBER: Are disputes like this calculated to encourage afforestation?
  MR. BIRRELL: I can assure the hon. Member I deeply regret the occurrence.

  Ballytrasna Cattle-Drive.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, on Monday, 4th May last, a cattle-drive took place off a farm grazed by Mr. T. Lynskey, of Ballytrasna, Tuam, County Galway, and off Balreagh Farm, between Elphin and Carrick-on-Shannon; what arrests have been made; and what sentences, if any, have been passed on the perpetrators of these outrages.
  MR. BIRRELL: The police are not aware that any cattle-drive has taken place at Ballytrasna, but on the night of 26th April, twenty-five head of cattle were driven off the Balreagh farm. There is no evidence against the offenders, and consequently no arrests have been made.

  Riverstown Cattle-Drives.
  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 Mr. M'Clintock's farm, Riverstown, County Leitrim,

  1155
  on Sunday, 3rd May last, and off a farm in the neighbourhood of Bohs, Tulsk, on the same day, and off the farm of Mr. John Macnamara, of Gort, at Coxtown, on Monday 4th May, and off the farm of Mr. Flynn, of Caroreagh, near Ballinasloe, County Roscommon, and off the farm of Mr. Dolan, in the same district and on the same date; and what arrests have been made.
  MR. BIRRELL: On 27th April cattle were driven off a farm of Colonel M'Clintock at Riverstown. No arrests were made. On 4th May cattle were driven off the farms of Messrs. Flynn and Dolan. Twenty-six persons were arrested, of whom twenty-five have been bound over to keep the peace. No cattle-drive has taken place from Mr. Macnamara's farm, and no case of cattle-driving has occurred in the district of Tulsk for some months past.

  Enniskillen Labourers' Cottage Scheme.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say whether the Enniskillen No. 2 Rural District Council has yet lodged a scheme under the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906; and, if so, how many cottages and extra allotments does it propose to deal with; and when will the inquiry be held.
  MR. BIRRELL; The scheme has not yet been received by the Local Government Board. The delay in the matter must be attributed to the clerk of the rural district council, whose neglect of duty is at present the subject of correspondence between the Board and the council.

  Irish Fishery Leases.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, where fishermen have held a several fishery under lease for a long term of years and, where such lease has expired, still held a tenancy from year to year, and where such tenancies have even been held for over 100 years, facilities will be given such fishermen who may so desire to purchase those fisheries, under the Land
  1156
  Act of 1903 as if they were estates within the meaning of the Act.
  MR. BIRRELL: The question raised by the hon. Member is governed by Section 99 of the Act of 1903, which provides that the Act shall not affect sporting rights which are not in the possession or enjoyment of the vendor at the time of the sale of the estate. The expression "sporting rights" includes fishery rights. If any question relating to fishery rights should arise in connection with the sale of an estate, the Land Commission will consider the matter in connection with the section quoted and Section 13 of the Act.
  MR. JOYCE: What protection have these poor fishermen against being evicted from the rights they have enjoyed so long?
  MR. BIRRELL: I can give them no better protection than the law allows.

  Grant Estate, Waterford, Evicted Tenants.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have an application from Edward Coleman, an evicted tenant, of the Grant Estate, County Waterford, for reinstatement on their files; how long have they had the application; whether he is aware that Mr. Coleman has died since the application was lodged, and that his children are still awaiting restoration to his former holding; whether the same is in the possession of the owner; and what steps have been taken to acquire the lands in order to reinstate them.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners received an application in 1904 from Edmond Coleman, then resident in New York, for reinstatement in a holding from which he was evicted in 1880. The Commissioners decided to take no action in the matter. Coleman died in 1906, and his daughter subsequently made a application for the holding, which is held under lease by another tenant. The Commissioners do not propose to take any action upon this application.

  Wall Estate, Monaghan, Evicted Tenant.
  MR. LARDNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for re-instatement from John Greenan, of Cladowen, an evicted tenant on the Wall Estate, County Monaghan; and, if so, the date on which it was received, and if the Commissioners have considered the application; and has an inspector been sent to visit the holding from which John Greenan was evicted.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners received the application in question on 5th February, 1904, and the case was subsequently investigated by an inspector. The Commissioners upon full consideration of the facts decided to take no action in the case. The farm from which the applicant was evicted is in the occupation of a tenant purchaser.
  MR. LARDNER: Was the result of the Commissioners' inquiry communicated to the tenant at the time?
  MR. BIRRELL: I will inquire as to that.

  Irish Intermediate Examinations.
  MR. HAZLETON:: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the average marks obtained on the special papers set in algebra at the Irish intermediate examinations in June, 1907; whether a number of honourmen, prizemen, exhibitioners, and at least one medallist taking algebra as a main subject, failed to score a single mark on the special algebra paper; and whether, in view of the provisions of the Intermediate Act, intended to encourage the study of mathematics in intermediate schools, he proposes to take any, and, if any, what action in the matter.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am informed by the Intermediate Education Board that the special test paper in algebra referred to in the Question was set for mathematical exhibitions. The average marks obtained were: In the junior grade, ninety-two; middle grade, eighty-five; and senior grade, 134; the maximum being 400. The average obtained by the
  1158
  successful students were 259, 239, and 218 in the respective grades. All the mathematical exhibitioners obtained marks on the special paper in algebra, with the exception of one student who did not take the paper but took the two other mathematical subjects of the course. The Board point out that the Intermediate Education Act was not intended to encourage the study of mathematics otherwise than as one of six subjects enumerated in the Schedule to the Act. Moreover the special papers in algebra are not intended for the average student, but only for those who are making a special study of mathematics. The matter is not one for the Government. It rests with the Board to fix the standard of the papers set in the various subjects.

  Contempt of Court Bill.
  MR. MCHUGH: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether the Bill promised in relation to committals for contempt of court has been drafted; and can he say when it will be introduced.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,: The Bill has been drafted and I hope to introduce it in the course of next week.

  Irish Agricultural Schools.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he can name the counties in Ulster in which it is intended to instal new agricultural schools and experimental farms.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,: The Department have decided to establish an agricultural school for the north-west, and have under consideration a proposal for another in the northeast, of the province of Ulster. The former will be located in County Tyrone. The location of the latter has not yet been decided.
  MR. LONSDALE: While I congratulate Tyrone on the prospect of having an institution of this kind, may I ask the

  1159
  hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the strong desire of Armagh for one?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The schools are not being established for counties but for districts, and I hope Armagh will be included in one of the districts.

  Irish Treasury Remembrancer.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any public announcement was made of the resignation of the late Treasury Remembrancer for Ireland, and, if so, when, where, and how was it announced; what was the date of the resignation and the date of the appointment of Mr. Hewby to the vacancy; if no public announcement was made of the vacancy, what opportunity had Irishmen to apply for the position; whether he will inquire if this may be the reason why no Irishman applied; and will he see that in future such vacancies are duly announced and reasonable time afforded for Irishmen to apply.
  MR. MULDOON: I beg also to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what was the date of the retirement of Sir Robert Holmes, lately Treasury Remembrancer for Ireland, and on what date was his resignation accepted; what was the date of the appointment of his successor; and whether any person responsible for the government of Ireland was consulted before the present Remembrancer was appointed, and, if so, what person.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,: No official announcement was made of Sir Robert Holmes's resignation. His retirement takes effect from to-day, and His successor enters on the duties of the office to-morrow. The names of several persons, both in Great Britain and Ireland, were considered for the appointment; and I do not think that any advantage could have been gained by giving wider publicity to the vacancy in the Office.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Was any Irishman consulted as to whether he would accept the post, and if not, why not?
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I have said that several names were considered of persons both in Great Britain and Ireland.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Did any Irishman have an opportunity of applying for the appointment?
  MR. HOBHOUSE: Several names were considered.
  MR. MULDOON: Did the hon. Gentleman consult any person responsible for the government of Ireland before the appointment was made?
  MR. HOBHOUSE: No, sir.
  MR. LONSDALE: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest there was no Irishman capable of filling the post?
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I have suggested nothing of the sort.
  MR. HUGH LAW: Will the Government consider the advisability of abolishing the office altogether, and thus relieving Ireland of one burden?
  [No Answer was returned.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (in respect of the Married Women's Property Bill): Colonel Seely; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Married Women's Property Bill): Mr. Masterman.
Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILL.

  CORONERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To provide for the appointment of Deputy Coroners in counties and boroughs in Ireland," presented by Mr. Ffrench; supported by Mr. Clancy, the Marquess of Hamilton, Mr. James

  1161
  O'Connor, Mr. John Gordon, Mr. Lardner, Mr. Kettle, and Mr. Moore; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 228]

PROSECUTION OF OFFENDERS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he was glad to see the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Attorney-General, in his place, because he desired to ask him a few questions with regard to the office of Director of Public Prosecutions. He thought he was correct in saying—and he hoped the Attorney-General would correct him if he was wrong—that when that office was divided some years ago it was found not to answer, and when a Report was made on the division, it was strongly recommended by eminent counsel that the subdivision should no longer be allowed to exist. As far as he could remember the hon. and learned Gentleman had said that matters had altered very considerably since the Report and that the passing of the Criminal Appeal Bill had rendered it absolutely necessary that further assistance should be given to the Treasury. It had been pointed out on his side of the House that further assistance might be given without dividing the office. They all knew that if they had two chiefs of two offices they must both be good men and paid salaries commensurate with the dignity of the two offices set up, whereas if they only had one chief they only had to give one salary, and they could give a lower salary for the second post and still have the work well and properly done. He was sure the Attorney-General would agree with him when he said that it was absolutely necessary now that every economy should be practised; that could not be denied on either side of the House, and therefore he wanted to know if it was too late to retain the office as it was at present, with one head, receiving an adequate salary. He would be the last to object to an adequate salary being paid to anyone, least of all to a prominent
1162
legal official. He did not wish in any way to prevent the Attorney-General filling the office in a proper manner, but he would like to ask whether he could not, by having one head, effect a saving, without injury to efficiency. He had listened to the speeches on the Second Reading of the Bill and also upon the Expenses Resolution, and he had not heard any adequate reason why the office should not be held under one chief, with a certain number of capable assistants under him. The Attorney-General would remember that a question arose as to what the cost would be under the Bill, and that he could not inform the House at that time what it would amount to, but he thought he gave an undertaking or said that as far as he could he would see that no further appointments were made than were absolutely necessary, and that, as they could not tell how many appeals were going to be made under the Criminal Appeal Act, to commence with he would proceed carefully and not appoint more than a small number of new officials. Some time had elapsed since that statement was made, and he would like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he had seen anything to induce him to vary that opinion, and whether, after consideration, he could give them any indication as to the cost, at any rate for the first year. He did not want to bind him beyond the bounds of reason, and he quite admitted that in two or three years time they might have a great number of appeals or very few appeals; much depended on the decisions of the Judges, and on other circumstances over which neither the hon. and learned Gentleman nor that House could possibly have any control; but, in view of all those circumstances, he thought it was advisable to proceed cautiously in the first instance. He saw the Chancellor of the Exchequer opposite, and he was sure he would agree that in view of all the expenses which were going to occur next year it would be advisable for the moment not to over-burden the finances of the country by appointing too many distinguished lawyers to these particular positions It was a little awkward, as both the hon. and learned Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman opposite belonged to that

1163
great profession, but he was certain their public spirit rose above their profession, and that they would desire to minimise, as far as possible with efficiency, the emoluments of the office. He was not quite sure, with regard to the qualifications in subsection 4, Clause 1, what people were to be appointed. The Director of Public Prosecutions was to be a barrister or solicitor of not less than ten years standing. He did not know that that was long enough. He would have thought that fifteen years would be a very much better time, because it was difficult to learn all the intricacies of the law in ten years. Then again, the Assistant Director must have seven years experience, and he would like to know why they should not both have the same number of years experience. The Assistant Director would be nearly as responsible as the Director himself, and it was very necessary that he should have ample qualifications and experience for fulfilling that post. He was talking about something of which he had not had a very great experience, and he was quite willing to accept the answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman whatever it might be. The hon. and learned Gentleman might tell him that these words were only put in as a safeguard, and that he would see to it that the best possible men were appointed. If that was so, he did not think he had anything further to say, but in an Act of Parliament it was best to leave nothing to the people who had to carry it out. They might not always have to deal with people so capable as the hon, and learned Gentleman, and therefore he would rather not leave anything to be decided by the people who would have to carry out the Act. If that had been done in the years past they would not have had so much trouble as they had now. Sub-section 4, Clause 2, read—
"It is hereby declared that the provisions of any Act requiring or authorising any Court to make on order for the payment to the prosecutor of any expenses of or incidental to the prosecution of any offence apply with respect to the payment of those costs to the Director of Public Prosecutions, as they apply with respect to the payment of those costs to a private prosecutor."
1164
He presumed that that was a just thing. He did not know to what it committed them, but he presumed it was necessary.
*MR. REESsaid he did not know whether the splitting of the two offices portended the resignation of Lord Desart, who had carried out his duties to such great satisfaction for so many years. He hoped that if it did he would retain one of those offices, which he rather understood was the case, and if the Attorney-General would tell the House that, he would satisfy legitimate curiosity on the subject. He did not know why the hon. Baronet took exception to the qualification provided by subsection 4, Clause 1, because not only was the qualification considerable in itself, but he understood that such technical qualifications were not altogether necessary, but that it was more a safeguard, a counsel of perfection, than of necessity. Either of the officers holding these offices was in a position to obtain the best possible legal advice, including that of the Attorney-General himself, whenever he wanted it, and not only had the office been held to public satisfaction by Lord Desart, but one of his predecessors, the late hon. Member for Sheffield, whose loss the House so much deplored, was also by no means unsuccessful in carrying out his duties, though he might have been properly described as an amateur lawyer. Nor could he see why the hon. Baronet objected to the lesser qualification in the case of the Assistant Director, because, except in regard to politicians, it was presumed that the senior officer was more likely to hold the senior place and to be the more capable to perform the duties. He did not suggest that that was a law of universal application, but he thought it applied to offices of this character. Would the Attorney-General tell them what was going to be the salary of the two offices after they had been divided as was proposed in the Bill?
MR. RAWLINSONsaid that on the Second Reading he made a strong appeal to his friends to allow the Bill to go through, understanding that it was urgent and

1165
necessary, but he would like to make a small point of complaint about it. It was said to be urgent then and was urgent then. It was absolutely essential that it should be brought into force before the Criminal Appeal Act came into force on 18th April. The Third Reading had not been brought on till now, and the Criminal Appeal Act had been in force for some considerable time. When they were appealed to to allow to be pushed through before a particular date a Bill which never came upon the Notice Paper again, that seemed to be a fair subject for criticism. It was only because he was friendly to the Bill that he dared to take up the position of a candid friend of the Government. As, however, delay had occurred the Government could give them information now which they could not do on earlier stages. They must know now, of course, what the arrangements were, and what staff it was proposed to have for the Public Prosecutor in future, and probably they could give details in regard to the expenditure, etc., which on the Second Reading of the Bill they had no right to ask for because of the urgency of the case. He fully agreed with what had keep said of the virtues of Lord Desart, though why such a distinguished servant should be referred to as an amateur lawyer he did not know. He thought it would probably be agreed that the qualification in Section 1, subsection 4, would be amply sufficient. The qualification for barristers and solicitors he held was always founded by their enemies upon the well-known Latin motto "Nemo fuit repente turpissimus." It might apply possibly to those being called to the Bar or seeking admission to the ranks of solicitors, but not to those who had become barristers or solicitors. The object of a qualification of this kind was probably to prevent the appointment, if such a thing were possible, for political reasons, of a person who was not a lawyer at all to a post of that kind—a course of action which was, he believed, known some thirty or forty years ago. The minimum qualification of seven years was amply sufficient. This was an important Bill and was necessary to the working of the Criminal Appeal Act, and no doubt it was desirable that the House should pass it. At the same time, they
1166
were now in a position to receive further information than they had on the Second Reading. The Government were to be most sincerely congratulated on the appointment of Sir Charles Matthews as director of the new office.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid they had been strongly appealed to on the Second Reading not to go into the merits of this important Bill on the ground that it was absolutely necessary that it should be passed before the Court of Criminal Appeal Act came into operation. But as the Criminal Appeal Court had come into existence, and no attempt had been made in the meantime to put this Bill on the Statute-book, they might take the opportunity of looking at it again on its merits, and ascertaining whether there was any real necessity for it. This subject was really very important. This was the third time within the last twenty-five years that it had come before Parliament, and if he understood the effect of the Bill aright it simply meant putting back the law as it stood between 1879 and 1884. The office of Director of Public Prosecutions was established by the Prosecution of Offences Act of 1879, with a salary of £2,000 a year, and the patronage of making the appointment was left with the Secretary of State, but the Attorney-General had the right to appoint six assistants to the Public Prosecutor, to divide the country into districts, and generally to make arrangements for public prosecutions. That Act had not been in operation five years when it was referred to a Committee to consider the whole subject, and to say whether it was really necessary to maintain this army of special officials. As a consequence of the Committee's Report the Act of 1884 was passed, the effect of which was that the whole of the appointments made under the Act of 1879 were revoked, and the Solicitor to the Treasury became, thereupon, the official Director of Public Prosecutions, and it was provided in that Act that any assistant solicitors in the Treasury Office would be competent to take up and discharge those duties. By Section 3 of the Act the police had to send particulars of all their prosecutions to the

1167
Treasury, and Section 4 repealed the Act of 1879 with the exception of the second paragraph of Section 2, and Section 6, which was now repealed by this Bill. Substantially, what was done by the Bill was that the procedure set up by the Act of 1879, and condemned by the Committee in 1884, was to be put in force again. The Secretary of State had now to appoint a Director of Public Prosecutions. That was exactly the section of the Act of 1879 which the Act of 1884 revoked. But it was to be put back in a worse form with regard to the assistants. In the Act of 1879 the number of assistants was restricted to six, and, of course, they could not get more than £2,000 a year, which was the amount paid to the chief, and therefore they had some sort of an idea of what it was going to cost. That was not the case in the present Bill. There might be practically as many of these officials as the Government chose to appoint. By Clause 2, Section 6 of the Act of 1879 was repealed. That was an exceedingly valuable clause. Why had they gone out of their way to repeal it? The effect of the section was that when a prosecution had been undertaken by private people, or by a person duly qualified under some statute to prosecute, and had been taken out of his hands by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who had a right to intervene in any prosecution whenever he thought fit and take it up, and the Director of Public Prosecutions had withdrawn the prosecution, it should be competent for the original prosecutor to apply to the Judge on an affidavit to get the prosecution reinstated. It was sought by this Bill to take away that very useful and proper clause, and the effect would be that if the Director of Public Prosecutions thought certain proceedings ought to be put an end to all he had to do was to intervene and take the matter up, and then decline to go any further with it, and the original prosecutor had no right to go on. He entirely failed to understand upon what conceivable grounds it was sought to repeal such an exceedingly important provision. He had looked up Hansard and found that the debates did not last two minutes altogether either on First, Second, or Third Reading or
1168
in Committee on the Bill of 1884. They also found in the excellent Report to which reference had been that the prosecution itself fell into the hands of the Treasury and therefore the Committee recommended that in the interest of efficiency and economy it would be much better if the decision as to the prosecution and its carrying out was in the hands of one person instead of two. On the recommendations of the Committee the House passed the Act of 1884. Now, the House was asked to put an end to the Act, and to revive the procedure which that Committee condemned, because there was a change consequent upon the new law of Criminal Appeal. It was difficult to see why Criminal Appeal should have anything to do with it. He had intended on the occasion of the Second Reading to have gone into the merits of this Bill, but, so strong was the appeal made to the House to pass the Bill on the ground of urgency, that he refrained from so doing. Now they found there was nothing in the point of urgency, and unless he could get some satisfactory assurance from the right hon. Gentleman he should certainly be disposed to vote against the Third Reading. It was a stupid departmental measure, the only result of which would be to create a lot of patronage, and in his opinion no useful purpose could be served by it.
MR. FELLsaid he was glad the hon. Baronet representin the City of London had given the House an opportunity to say a few words upon this subject. This work had been very successfully handled by the Treasury Solicitor and Director of Public Prosecutions and his assistants, one of whom was especially selected for the purposes of taking these prosecutions. Under the old system no difficulty had arisen to prevent the Treasury Solicitor getting further assistance if he required it, and that could still be done and he could still remain the head. It was a somewhat extraordinary thing that two days before this Bill was to be read a third time a paragraph should have appeared in the public Press giving the name of the gentleman who had been approached by the Government and offered the new appointment of Public

1169
Prosecutor. It would almost look as if the Government already regarded the Bill as law. He was quite prepared to believe that this must have been a slip, but if it was it was a slip that should not have been allowed to occur. He was glad to have this opportunity of raising the question, so that some explanation might be given of why that announcement appeared in the Press, and unless that explanation was satisfactory he should oppose the Bill.
*MR. GEORGE D. FABERsaid the Second Reading of this Bill had been allowed to go through without discussion, because of the appeal which had been made on the ground of urgency; that the Criminal Appeal Act was coming into operation, and that these two measures should run pari passu. But the Criminal Appeal Act he pointed out became law some weeks ago. He thought the Government must be under a misapprehension. They must have forgotten that this Bill had not yet been read a third time, because it had actually got into the Press that a certain eminent gentleman had been approached as to whether he would accept the office of Public Prosecutor. He hoped there would be some explanation given of how such a serious mistake took place as to approach anyone with such an offer before the Bill creating the appointment became law. He would like the hon. and learned Gentleman to tell the House at the same time what the salary of this new official was going to be, because that question must also have been raised when the appointment was offered to this eminent gentleman. The Government must know by this time how many minor offices and officers there were to be, and perhaps the Attorney-General would tell the House that also. It was quite a new departure for a Government to take bringing in Bills in this way, and asking as it were for a blank cheque for appointments, as they had done in this instance, and in others recently. Surely the House of Commons had a right to know before they allowed a Bill to leave their control what the expense incurred under that Bill would amount to.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,),who was
1170
indistinctly heard was understood to say that he thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite were attributing rather undue importance to the newspaper reports with regard to the learned gentleman who was likely to be appointed to the office of Public Prosecutor. It was inevitable that there should be some kind of negotiation as to terms, but no arrangement of a final character could possibly be made until the Bill passed. It was not unusual for the Government to communicate privately to hon. Gentlemen opposite the names of gentlemen they might think of appointing to offices, and that was done in this case. It was inevitable, perhaps, that such communications should get into the newspapers, but he did not think the Government were in any way to blame. These negotiations had to be entered into, and then a binding engagement could be effected as they might be advised. Another objection had been made in regard to urgency. It was quite true that on the First Reading of the Bill he had laid stress on the point of urgency. The Criminal Appeal Act was coming into force, and they were very anxious, indeed, that the new Department should be properly equipped in readiness. But the House was well aware that circumstances had intervened which had rather disturbed the ordinary course of business. There were first the holidays, and then there were important political events which caused the adjournment of the House over a longer period than usual at that period of the year. Though the delay was regrettable it was inevitable, and it bad interrupted the progress of the Government business. When the House reassembled, hon. Members would remember, business of a very important character arose, which it was difficult and not very safe to postpone, even for a non-controversial Bill, because non-controversial Bills sometimes gave rise to a deal of discussion. He did not say such a thing was likely in this instance, but he had known non-controversial Bills put in front of some very important Bill develop a capacity for controversy undreamt of by their framers. Sometimes that was done to postpone the consideration of important matters subsequently put down. However, he was only putting that as a philosophic and academic consideration, which was not likely to be the case in the

1171
present instance. So much for the question of urgency. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London had reopened the question of the general principle of the Bill. He was under the impression that he had dealt with that adequately on previous occasions; still, hon. Members were well-entitled to demand at this stage of the Bill a restatement of the general principle, and, if necessary, a fresh defence of it. The hon. Baronet had said that under the Act of 1879 a separate department was created for public prosecutions, and it was put under a separate head. It was found in 1884 that a mistake had been made, and a Committee which inquired into the subject made a Report which led to the Act of 1884. The Report recommended that the Act of 1879 should, in fact, be undone, and that instead of a separate department for public prosecutions the Solicitor to the Treasury ought to do the whole work. Under the Act of 1879 a very distinguished man was appointed Director of Public Prosecutions, with a limited staff, and he so construed the Act, and rightly construed it, that he gave his duties practically no more scope than that of deciding what cases should be prosecuted by the Public Proseutor. He did not carry out the prosecutions himself; he sent them to the Treasury. That was not found to be a very satisfactory plan, and very properly Parliament said that the Act of 1879 had not carried out their intentions, and that the Treasury had better take over the whole work. Therefore, the Solicitor to the Treasury, who was the responsible head of this particular department of the administration of the criminal law, was appointed to do the work, and he thought he had done it very successfully for a long period. But the growth of public business had brought about a new and much more difficult state of things. The Solicitor to the Treasury had to perform a number of duties of which the public were scarcely conscious. He was not merely Solicitor to the Treasury in the narrow sense of that word, if it could be applied to anything so considerable as the Treasury, but he was also Solicitor to the Home Office, the War Office, the Admiralty, the Board of Works, and the Education Office. He had also a department which brought him frequently in contact with the Attorney-General. He was Solicitor for
1172
the charity work of the Attorney-General, a department which he could assure the House was one of very great responsibility and importance, devolving not merely great labour on the head of the department, but in a still greater degree on the able subordinates who saw to the details of the charity work which had to come under the purview of the Attorney-General. The Solicitor to the Treasury had also a minor department connected with the Stationery Office and the British Museum. He was also King's Proctor, an office which entailed upon him real personal and individual work to a very much larger extent than was thought. He never intervened except by the Attorney-General's fiat. Each case had to be carefully considered before it was presented to the Attorney-General, and he was the person who had to act when the Attorney-General issued his fiat. The duties of the Solicitor to the Treasury were accompanied by a mass of supervisional and detailed work. Take, for instance, the Admiralty and the War Office. He thought the House might well avail itself of the present opportunity to acquaint itself with the actual working of the great departments. The increase in the Admiralty work had been enormous. The building of docks and of ships caused the Solicitor to the Treasury a great deal of work, for nearly everything was affected by litigation. There was no field of human activity in which was not seen the shadow of the lawyer somewhere. The Admiralty at one time, comparatively speaking, was a small department; there was a smaller number of ships, and they were put in commission in a far smaller way; but the work had enormously increased, and gave rise to numerous arbitrations. The latest Admiralty arbitration had lasted something like twenty days. This involved an elaborate inquiry, and the head of the department had to possess not only a general but a detailed knowledge sufficient to enable him to answer questions on the part of the Government. All that made a growth in his work. Take, again, the Education Department. In 1884 it was a much more simple department than it was to-day. The growth of work meant that Lord Desart had been obliged to delegate much of his work, but he now found that the delegation was getting beyond the scope of proper and adequate supervision. Lord Desart said he could delegate his

1173
work to able men up to a certain point, but in the last few years his duties of supervision had been practically impossible of adequate performance on account of the immense number of the delegated duties. He was King's Proctor. At one time the King's Proctor mainly dealt with certain domestic differencies of an interesting character, but he also had attached to that office certain duties connected with international law in cases of crime. All these duties had become more urgent every year, so that what was workable in 1884 was now no longer workable. The whole purpose of the Bill was really to deal with that state of things. From this general consideration he would now pass to one or two minor points. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City had remarked that he had not told them anything about the expense. He did not know much more than before. There had not been a great many assizes or sessions. The exact number of criminal appeals up to date was fifteen, which rather justified the observation he had made previously, that he did not think that at first there would be many appeals. He had given the House the exact number of persons employed in the existing Department devoted especially to criminal business. First there was Lord Desart, the director, one assistant solicitor, who acted as assistant director, two chief clerks, one first class clerk, two assistant chief clerks, and five other clerks. They proposed to add to that number the new director, and additional clerks and shorthand clerks. At present difficulties were being surmounted by the existing staff with a magnificent energy which one very often found among public servants, who were never asked in vain, especially in the higher departments, to give extra labour, and they gave it with a greater readiness than frequently was experienced in the case of the employees of private firms. They had not seen, at any rate up to the present moment, any reason to suppose that the estimate they were making was either extravagant or underneath the demand. Of course, when the Summer Assizes began to be held, and they got the sittings of Quarter Sessions in a larger number throughout the country, they might receive some disagreeable surprise. They might find that there were a great many appeals which would lead to a heavy strain on our
1174
judicial system, but up to within the last few days they had not had any reason to suppose that they had not made adequate provision. They had no intention whatever—in fact they were too closely watched by the Treasury for that—of appointing new officers or clerks, or assistant directors, until it became absolutely necessary. As to what number might be absolutely necessary they were very largely in doubt. As to the period of qualification of any barrister who might be appointed, the limit was put at seven and ten years, and he knew of no reason why it should not be nine or eleven years, except that the limit of seven or ten years appeared to have been generally accepted. Then with regard to Section 2 which repealed Section 6 of the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1879, that was a very small and simple matter. The clause provided that where a prosecution was undertaken by a private individual, and it was taken over by the Director of Public Prosecutions, when the latter abandoned it, the private prosecutor should be able to apply to the Court for leave to go on. The hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool had described that as a very valuable clause, but they had had twenty-eight years experience of it, and it had never been acted upon once. It was a clause which it was thought must occasionally give use to some degree of oppression in cases where the Public Prosecutor had reason to think that the prosecution was being urged on by private persons from personal or indirect motives. It must be remembered that there had always been that danger in our system of criminal law, which left so much to the initiative of private individuals. Generally speaking, our law was left to be enforced by the intervention of the private citizen and the public prosecution was the exception. We did not, like other countries, put all prosecutions into the hands of the Public Prosecutor. The prosecution was put in his hands only in exceptional cases, but it was found both in other countries and in our own that very often the name of the King was used in a prosecution for some quite indirect and personal purpose; they saw it quite recently in a great prosecution in a police court, where undoubtedly the prosecution was instituted against a man who was grossly wronged, and who suffered in

1175
purse and health from motives which were not of a kind that would commend themselves to the country at large. They were collateral to the carrying on of a civil litigation. In such cases it had always been held that the Public Prosecutor should have the right to abandon such proceedings, and it had never happened or at all events very seldom happened, that the private prosecutor had desired to carry them on. They were discussing an academic question, as the clause had never been put in operation. It had been thought, however, that by the repeal of that clause it might be possible to prevent the occurrence of injustice, and as the clause had never been operative for twenty-eight years it was thought desirable as this Bill was being drafted to take the opportunity of effecting the repeal.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid the effect of the clause was that where a prosecution was undertaken by a private individual, and it was afterwards taken over by the Director of Public Prosecutions, when the Director of Public Prosecutions abandoned it the prosecutor could apply to the Court for leave to go on, and the fact that there had been no case under this clause was because its being upon the Statute-book prevented the necessity arising.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid he quite understood the effect of the clause, and had stated it, and the hon. Gentleman had just repeated it. Of course the clause was drafted with a view to give the Public Prosecutor the right to take up a prosecution, and if he abandoned it the private prosecutor could take it up. But that power, which it gave to the private prosecutor, was thought to be a source of danger in certain cases, and so they had put this provision in the Bill. But it was a small matter and not of great importance; it could not be held that the clause was an extremely valuable one, as the hon. Member for West Derby had said.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the third time and passed.

PUBLIC OFFICES SITES (EXTENSION) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
*THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,): Although I sacrifice my right to reply to any criticisms which may be made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, I think they would really wish that I should shortly explain the object of this Bill, and having done so I shall ask them to pass it practically without objection through this stage. Its object is in fact a continuation of the late Government's plan, which is founded on the Report of the Committee of 1897. It is a plan to complete the block of new public offices which has just been finished and uncovered at the corner of Whitehall down Great George Street as far as St. James's Park. In the process we shall abolish Delahay Street, which will be no longer wanted as a public thoroughfare. We have acquired the building of the Institution of Civil Engineers, making an arrangement to rehouse them on the south side of Great George Street, at the corner of Princes Street, a small accommodation road leading from Storey's Gate to Westminster Hospital. We shall take advantage of that operation to widen Princes Street, which will be a considerable public convenience. The whole terms of purchase of the Institute of Civil Engineers have now been settled by friendly negotiation between them and myself. I was obliged to give notice of this Bill, which is in the nature of a hybrid Bill, under the Standing Order last November. At that time the agreement with the Civil Engineers was not complete, and therefore I was obliged to include in the Bill a notice which would apply compulsion to the acquisition of their site, though I never had any intention of using compulsion, because, as hon. members know, the Institution of Civil Engineers have always had the impression that they had had some under-taking from the Government that their site Would not be required. The Office of Works has never been able to accept that contention, nor is there any written proof of it, but the final and friendly agreement I have described having been come to, the compulsory clause may disappear from the Bill in Committee upstairs.

1177
In the new building we shall house the Board of Trade, and, if possible, some of the smaller offices, such as the Office of Works or the Board of Agriculture, which are greatly in need of further accommodation, though, of course, I cannot pledge myself as to what at the completion of the building four or five years hence may be the requirements of the Board of Trade, or of the Education Office or Local Government Board, which are going to be placed in the new building now complete. What perhaps will interest the House most is the fact that the money for the acquisition of the whole site is available under the loans provisions of the Public Buildings Expenses Act, 1903, Most of the freeholds have already been acquired by agreement and voluntary sale, though there are a few leaseholds and some freeholds still to be acquired. The cost of erection is provided for in the Budget, and a clause setting aside £600,000 out of the realised surplus of last year will appear in the Finance Bill. Under the arrangement, therefore, no capital outlay at all will be entailed upon future years. In addition there is a provision for making an enlargement of the Patent Office, which is required owing to the greater amount of work entailed upon them by the Act of 1907. This addition of site and building is estimated to cost about £90,000. That is to be provided for out of annual Votes, and the House in Committee has already provided £10,000 this year on account of that sum. Then there is one other provision of interest relating to Scotland yard. The Bill takes power to stop up part of a nominal road in Scotland yard, really a service or accommodation road which passes behind a disused police building, and by an agreement which the Commissioners of Woods have been able to make with the Westminster City Council we shall have an improved thoroughfare through old Scotland yard leading to Whitehall and the Embankment for the use of the public. By doing this and stopping the part of the disused road and using the old police building I shall be able to accommodate on the site a new Army recruiting station, and in that way I shall get rid of a large remnant of St. George's Barracks and of the recruiting station behind the National Gallery. I shall remove from the neighbourhood of the National Gallery and the National
1178
Portrait Gallery a building which has always had some element of risk from I fire, and I shall gain a site also for the extension of both these galleries in the future. Persons interested will be able to appear before the Select Committee, upon which I shall myself sit, by counsel or agents. I beg to move.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
LORD BALCARRES: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving the details of the proposals in this Bill, and I should say in the first place that the scheme to extend the public offices down to St. James's Park is one which possibly will be approved of generally throughout the House, and one which is necessary owing to the growth of Government Departments. But the point which impresses people irrespective of the needs of these public departments, is as to the financial liabilities that may be involved. I understood the First Commissioner to say that this Bill will cost no money.
MR. HARCOURTwas understood to say that there were no future capital liabilities.
LORD BALCARRESOf course, it is rather important to make oneself clear on that point. In saying that it involves no capital liabilities the right hon. Gentleman must, in looking at the present year, see that it involves a capital liability of £600,000, which is capital belonging to the nation, and it is going to be diverted from one branch of the national service to another. There is a precedent for intercepting money which would otherwise pass to the reduction of the National Debt, and that is the case of the erection of public buildings. These public buildings are, happily, of a substantial nature and likely to increase in value. In view of the enormous increase which is likely to take place in the value of sites it would probably pay the nation better to spend this half a million upon public buildings than to devote it to the repayment of the National Debt. I am quite ready to approve of the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he must

1179
not state that this Bill involves no capital charge. The initial capital charge is £600,000, and that has to be found during the present year. It has been the policy of the Government for the last ten years to acquire as many sites as possible with a view to the ultimate and inevitable increase of departmental requirements. I do not think that the whole of these sites belong to us at present. Then there is the provision of a new building for the Institution of the Civil Engineers. I should like to point out to the House—and I am limiting myself to the financial aspect of these questions—that it is a very serious thing when a Government has to come forward with a proposal of this nature that it should have to pull down a building which was erected only about ten or twelve years ago. It is a building of a most substantial character, and the cost of its erection was something fabulous. In this Bill, while we take the right, to demolish that structure, the Government undertake the responsibility of finding an alternative site elsewhere. The site found already belongs in part to the Government; that is to say the new building will be placed upon land upon which some capital outlay has already been incurred. But this Bill only provides for the site. I presume the Government is going to erect the new building, and I wish to know what it is going to cost. Let me here congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon having adjusted rather a delicate operation with the Institution of Civil Engineers. I understand that we are going to pull down their building and use their site, and we are now providing a new site for their new building to be erected upon. Who is going to erect that new building? The Civil Engineers are not, because they paid a quarter of a million for the erection of a structure from which they are now going to be removed. I presume that we shall have not only to pay for the erection of our own Government building upon the site of the Civil Engineers' building, but also to rehouse that assembly in a building equal to that which they now occupy. I cannot help thinking that the cost of that will amount to a very substantial sum. How is that money provided? My right hon. friend beside me and Lord Windsor passed three Bills in 1895, 1898, and 1903, providing money for public sites analogous to these and buildings for public purposes.
1180
I do not think that in any of these three years—certainly not in the last—we took power to borrow money for the erection of buildings other than public buildings. I cannot help thinking that a somewhat pessimistic tone ran through the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He declared that no capital outlay was to be incurred in future years. We recognise that as a doctrine strongly supported by the present Administration. Rosyth, which by means of a loan would have been concluded within three or four years, has been placed upon the Votes and it is going to take ten years. Barracks, which used to be built out of loan money, were rapidly completed and the troops placed in them; but now, owing to the abandonment of the loan system, we have not got the barracks at all, for they have been sacrificed to this new canon of financial purity, although it is extremely bad for the service. If the right hon. Gentleman precludes us from borrowing money and no financial outlay is to be incurred, he runs a very serious risk of checking the development of these buildings. When is the new building for the Institution of Civil Engineers to be commenced? The building at present occupied by this institution will, in the course of the next few months, be pulled down. It is rather alarming that in ten years a Minister should have to come to this House to pass Bills of this character, because it marks what is really an alarming growth in the numbers and personnel of our public service. I agree with the Attorney-General as to the efficiency, zeal, and good spirit shown by our public servants, but at the same time I think we can be over-governed. During five years we covered five or six acres with public buildings within 300 yards of this Chamber, and in the subsequent two years we have built over more than two acres, not to mention vast expenditure on public buildings under the supervision of the right hon. Gentleman all over the country. That very fact in its political and social aspect is one which is well brought home to the community by Bills of this character. I know that is not the responsibility of the First Commissioner of Works, because the various departments have turned to him for accommodation, and this has stimulated him to activity. With regard to this question of finance, I do not remember in

1181
the last three Bills what the total outlay was, but I rather think it ran into millions. As a rule I know the estimates are exceeded. I should like to say that the Office of Works is not responsible for the fact that estimates are often so largely exceeded; the Treasury is primarily to blame for cutting down those estimates to the minimum figure. The House ought also to remember that when you deal with interests of this character and this size, when you undertake to erect buildings on from two to four acres of ground, the scale of operations is so enormous, and the period necessary for their completion is so long, that it is difficult and in many cases impossible for the contractor correctly to estimate what the rise or fall in wages and materials may be during the years he is carrying out his contract. I wish to have a more specific statement as to the cost. We have not very great confidence in this Government and its economical supporters on questions of finance. Pledged to economy, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, reinforced and stimulated by his hon. friends behind and around him, have now committed the country to an expenditure little short of gigantic, and exceeding by many millions annually the total sum which it fell to the lot of the late Conservative Government to submit to the House of Commons. In the last two days we have learned that their financial righteousness is going to be somewhat sullied next year, when in order to meet all these obligations principles are to be abandoned and the sinking fund raided.
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. I think the noble Lord had better postpone those criticisms until we reach the Finance Bill.
LORD BALCARRES: I think it is desirable that so far as possible the right hon. Gentleman should tell us actually what the annual expenditure is which he anticipates apart from this present capital outlay upon the block of buildings and upon the buildings to be placed upon the site in Princes Street during the five years which it will probably take to complete them. There is one small further comment I should like to make. In Clause 6 the Commissiosners take power to erect an archway over Downing Street. I have no doubt there is a good technical reason for putting that clause in the Bill,
1182
but I cannot help thinking that the First Commissioner had the right to erect this arch without taking a clause to entitle him to do so. The First Commissioner acting as he does in harmony and co-operation with the Commissioners for Crown Estates and Woods and Forests seems to me to possess powers over these Government and Crown Estates far in excess of the powers belonging to the ordinary private individual, and, although the latter part of the clause is obviously necessary to authorise him to close the street while the structural alterations are being made, I cannot help feeling that in the other part he is asking for a right which he already possesses, and to that extent he is prejudicing or discounting the rights and privileges which, as First Commissioner, he already holds. So long as the right hon. Gentleman in making this arch does not endanger the life and limb of London citizens, I think he has the right to make the arch, and unless it is necessary to have this provision in the Bill, I think it would be on the whole wise to omit it.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDmoved that the Bill be read a second time upon this day six months. The Bill appeared to him to be one to carry out an ambitious and costly scheme for the erection of public buildings on sites that were extremely valuable. Within 300 yards of this House there was land available for the purpose of housing the most important Departments of the State, and that could be obtained for less than a tenth of the value of the particular sites now proposed to he acquired. A very great change had during the past two or three years come over the appearance of the surroundings of this House. Owing to the praiseworthy action of the London County Council large portions of slum property which stood on land to the west of the Houses of Parliament had been pulled down, and there were now sites which could be acquired for the purpose of public offices quite as near this House as most of the expensive and elaborate buildings put up in Parliament Street. One would have thought that a Parliament pledged to retrenchment and economy in every possible way would have considered whether they could not make some improvement on the unnecessarily extravagant plans of their predecessors. When in opposition they

1183
said they were going to do it, and yet when they got into office one of the very first things they proceeded to do was to carry out schemes which, when initiated by their predecessors, they had described as extravagant. Moreover, they were doing so in a very much more extravagant manner than there was any occasion for. If those responsible for the housing of the public departments would look at the marvellous sites which were made available in the neighbourhood of the Church of St. John they would find there ground sufficient for any reasonable extension of most of the public departments for years to come at a very small outlay. One reason why he very much objected to this Bill was that it involved the acquisition and pulling down of buildings which had not been up for twenty years. He referred to the Institution of Civil Engineers. Everything that skill from the engineering and architectural point of view could do in connection with that building had been done, and yet, forsooth, because it was supposed to stand in the way of some set of plans it was proposed to pull it down and, at enormous cost, to erect another building in its place. One could hardly imagine how, without regard to the common feelings of ordinary property owners, a Bill of this kind could be brought before the House. For instance it was proposed by subsection (a) of Clause 2 that—
"The provisions relating to the sale of superfluous land and access to the special Act and section one hundred and thirty-three of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (relating to land tax and poor rate) shall not be incorporated with this Act."
On the face of it that looked harmless enough, but what did it amount to? If these most valuable sites were acquired for public offices, and if a few yards of land were left unused at Some corner or at the side of the property, the Government would, under section 128 of the Lands Clauses Act, be obliged within a specified period to allow the previous owner of the property to take back the unused portion. Subsection (a) meant that the Government would be placed in a position superior to the ordinary law of the land, and that they would not be obliged to give the previous owner the offer of the unused portion. What was the meaning of the words "access to the special Act" in the sub-section? Section 133 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act would
1184
oblige the Government if, having acquired these sites and pulled down buildings, they caused a temporary loss on the land tax or the poor rate, to make good the amount of the loss. By slipping the words of the sub-section (a) into this Bill the Government would be relieved from that obligation with respect to the land tax and the poor-rate. Sub-section (c) was in the following terms—
"The bond required by section eighty-five of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, shall be under the common seal of the Commissioners, and shall be sufficient without the addition of the sureties mentioned in that section."
He did not think the Government when they acquired sites for public offices should be relieved from the obligations to which public bodies were subjected by Section 85 of the 1845 Act. Why not bring in a measure to strike out that clause in the main Act, if that was a proper thing to do, but why should the Government solemnly seek to be relieved from a statutory obligation which they imposed on every private citizen? But the most objectionable clause was in subsection (e), the effect of which was that if a claimant did not send in his claim at a particular time, and with the particulars of his demand in a statutory form, to enable the Commissioner to make a proper offer, he was saddled with the whole costs. He had had experience of these matters for forty or fifty years, and he had never seen a suggestion equal to that in its audacity from a property point of view. When he saw Bills like this—Post Office Sites Bills, for instance—and saw a public department, for petty purposes of their own, trying to relieve themselves from the statutory obligations which private citizens and other public bodies were under throughout the whole kingdom, he was inclined to resent it. These were minor or subordinate grounds for moving the rejection of the Bill, but there was a much larger question involved. In housing our public departments, when sites could be got for a trifle compared with the cost of the land proposed to be taken, it was the duty of those concerned with the administration of the country to have some regard to economy as well as efficiency. Cheaper sites should be selected, and the departments housed in a less gorgeous manner. In the present case that was all the more necessary as the proposed

1185
buildings would shortly require to be altered or pulled down altogether, because of the utterly inadequate supply of light to many of the rooms. The whole project was capable of being criticised and condemned on other grounds than those to which he had referred, but he would content himself with these observations, and formally move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he had much pleasure in seconding the Amendment. He was glad to see the hon. Member for Sutherland in his place, for that hon. Gentleman should have something to say on the proposals of this Bill on the ground of economy. He knew that the hon. Member had no fear of criticising his own Party, and as he would show the House that the expenditure proposed by the Bill was extravagant, he trusted to have the support of the hon. Member in the division lobby. He objected to the Bill because he was inclined to think that it was unnecessary. It was a self-evident proposition that up to the present time they had got on very well without this building. He did not know that the efficiency of the public officers had, in any kind of way, been lessened on account of the inadequacy of the housing provision. They seemed to have got on very well with their work. He did not gather from the remarks of the First Commissioner of Works that he considered the accommodation now existing not sufficient for the staff, but rather that the proposed building would be part of a finished plan and no doubt would be more comfortable for the staff. So far as he could see, the work carried out by the First Commissioner had been extremely good and very artistic, but he was afraid very expensive. He was inclined to think from the observations he had made of the right hon. Gentleman's career, that from his love of art and his desire to get his own way he was rather apt to outrun his discretion, and to spend more money than was absolutely necessary. He really thought that they should be careful before they sanctioned any expenditure of this sort. The object of the Bill, of course, was to acquire sites, but before acquiring sites
1186
they must fix upon a plan. Nothing was so expensive as a London building. There was nothing nicer than to look at a plan and see how it could be carried out in an excellent way. It was very charming and very seductive; but when it was all carried out and they found that the expenditure had exceeded the estimate, the taxpayer would be inclined to say that he would rather see the older building retained than a new building erected and great expense incurred. He wished to ask what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do with the existing Board of Trade buildings. They were very good buildings and had been in existence for a very considerable time. He was not at all sure that the buildings put up years ago were not, if not so ornamental, more simple and more suited to their purpose than the new buildings. Take, for instance, the Law Courts, which had been described in very strong terms by the people who passed their lives in them. The present Board of Trade buildings were very excellent for their purpose and were much quieter than the new building would be. Then, it had to be remembered that there was a tendency to increase the public service with the erection of new buildings; and the bigger the buildings the more that tendency increased. New buildings had a direct tendency to create new posts and on that account he would rather see the present buildings somewhat congested. The right hon. Gentleman had not used the argument that there was no room in the present buildings for the existing Government officials. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that there was a public-house at the corner of Princes Street, and what compensation he was going to give to the owner?
*MR. HARCOURT: We are not going to touch it.
SIR F. BANBURY: Oh! I am very glad.
*MR. HARCOURT: Hear, hear.
SIR F. BANBURY: For the sake of the Government and of the owner of the public-house. The question of the

1187
cost of the new building had been dismissed in a very airy way. The right hon. Gentleman said that that was to be sanctioned out of capital expenditure. He was rather surprised at that. He would have supposed that the right hon. Gentleman would have put the cost on the Estimates, for his Party always said that that was the proper way of carrying on the finances of the country. After all, it came to this, that when he and right hon. Gentlemen opposite had a desire to do something their financial purity disappeared and they took the way that was open to the least resistance and obtained the money by borrowing rather than by putting it on the expenditure of the year. There was an important provision in the Bill alluded to by the hon. Member for one of the Liverpool divisions; and that was as to the question of rates. He was not a lawyer, but, as he understood, the right hon. Gentleman had introduced some very innocent-looking words in a clause which would deprive the City of Westminster of a large amount of rates. Pending the construction of the building on the site, the Government would not be liable for the rates. That was rather a good thing for the Government, but was rather hard upon the citizens of the City of Westminster. Why should the Government put themselves in a different position from that which would have to be occupied by a private person, and by an alteration of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act evade the payment of rates during the erection of the building? One of the reasons he objected to this Bill was the destruction of the building of the Civil Engineers, and he would like to know why that building could not be adapted. It was a very fine one it was erected only some ten or twelve years ago, and might be made suitable for the Board of Trade. The ornamental outline might not be as fine, but in these days, even if their finances were better than they were, they might sacrifice ornament for utility. The President of the Board of Trade was going to have an increased salary, and he did not think he wanted a very ornamental building; he might content himself with the office which had been suitable for
1188
the Civil Engineers, and at a very much less cost than was provided for in the Bill a very suitable office might be obtained. He did not propose to ask any questions about Clause 2, because it was all legal and he did not understand it. This again was one of those Bills which were full of references to other Acts. The meaning of the Bill could only be learnt after one had gone through all those Acts, and referred to all the clauses. He thought that was a very bad way of drawing up a Bill, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen when they were on that side complained of it, but when they were on the other side they continued the bad practice, and it was waste of time to endeavour to get them to alter it. He wanted to know why subsection 2 of Clause 3, which gave power to stop up public thoroughfares, was inserted. The power to stop up public thoroughfares was a very great one to give even to the right hon. Gentleman. It looked quite simple, and gave the Commissioners power to do this, but provided that they should not exercise it in respect of any thoroughfare unless they were owners in possession of all the houses and land along both sides of the thoroughfare. On the face of it, it looked a very reasonable provision, but he would like to know what advantage it would be to the public that the Commissioners owned the land on both sides of the street. The public did not want to go into the houses on both sides of the street, but to walk down the street, going in at one end and coming out at the other. He believed that this statement about the Commissioners owning both sides of the street was one of those extraordinary things which were put into Bills, but he could not see that it had anything to do with the stopping of public thoroughfares. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give them an assurence that this power would not be exercised if it was in any kind of way objected to by the people who were likely to use the street. Then, again, he saw in Sub-section 3, the Commissioners of Woods might stop up part of Scotland Yard, but he understood from the right hon. Gentleman that this really did not stop up the thoroughfare

1189
practically and that he was going to give a thoroughfare to Whitehall. Therefore, as far as that was concerned, his objection fell to the ground. Then he came to Clause 5, which dealt with the extinction of rights of way and other easements. The Bill was exceedingly full of provisions about rights of way being vested in the Commissioners, but it was provided that men might recover from them such compensation, if any, as they were entitled to. But people might want to retain their rights and not want to be compensated for them, and he did not see why the right hon. Gentleman should take these particular rights away from the holders. Clause 9 seemed to him to be a very extraordinary clause, giving power to the Commissioners to widen a portion of Princes Street within certain limits. The cost of repaving that portion of the street when widened, it was provided, should be borne by the council of the City of Westminster. Why should not the Commissioners pay for the repaving of the street which they wanted to widen for their own objects, instead of seeking to put it upon the council of the City of Westminster? He did not know whether there was any hon. Member who represented the City of Westminster present, but if there was he hoped that he would have his attention drawn to this clause and endeavour to get the Government to delete it when it went to a Committee. He thought that the Bill was unnecessary, and would cost a great deal of money and, so far from its doing any good, he was inclined to think it might do a great deal of harm, because it might induce the Government to create a large number of officials to fill up the beautiful rooms. Under these circumstances he would prefer not to have any officials or beautiful rooms, but to keep what little money was left in his pocket by the right hon. Gentleman. He begged to second.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. W. W. Rutherford.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I desire to say only a few words, and I am afraid not in support of my hon. friends who have moved and seconded the rejection of this Bill. I think the Bill is a desirable and necessary Bill, and I do not think it is open to the charges which my hon. friends made in disparagement of it. I think that for its purpose the cost is extremely moderate. The First Commissioner said that the whole cost of the site had already been provided for by the Act of 1903, which also provided for the removal and rebuilding of the Institution of Engineers. We have also heard from the Prime Minister and the First Commissioner of Works to-day that the funds for the new building are largely if not entirely provided for by this £6000,000 out of the Budget surplus of the present year. If any culpability attaches with regard to this policy I am as fully culpable as the right hon. Gentleman opposite. This Bill is carrying out the policy which it appeared to me to be my duty and my pleasure to initiate some ten or twelve years ago in this House. If I in most things share the views of my hon. friend the Member for the City of London, I certainly do not share his views, as to æsthetic matters. He would like to go back to the time when King Street existed and the condition of Parliament Street was such that it was almost impossible to getto the House of Commons; there was always a great block of traffic, and certainly one of the most beautiful thoroughfares in London had not been created. I do not wish to go back to those days. I think the policy which was put forward some ten or twelve years ago really satisfies me, and I am only anxious to support the right hon. Gentleman in the effort he is now making to complete that building, and also the wing which is to extend to St. James' Park. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment suggested that there were much cheaper sites, which might be obtained in the neighbourhood of the House, and rather suggested that we should purchase slum property in the neighbourhood of Millbank in order to erect these buildings. But he has entirely, I think, overlooked the convenience of public offices, that they ought at all events to be handy to each

1191
other and in the same neighbourhood, and he has entirely set aside the whole æsthetic part of the question. Then the hon. Gentleman complained of the buildings which had been erected, and for which I was responsible, by saying that they were badly planned and that there was a great want of light and accommodation. Certainly that is news to me. I have always heard from those who moved into those buildings that the arrangements were extremely good and that the accommodation was of a character which spoke well for the work of the department. Then the hon. Gentleman said that he thought the old buildings were as suitable for public offices as the new buildings that were going to be erected. If he had served, as some of us have, in temporary offices, I think he would find he is mistaken. The Minister who is generally housed in the drawing-room in an old house has a very good office, but the unfortunate clerks and draftsmen who are in cellars and attics certainly would not be so comfortable. The work will also be carried out better in a building where you have your staff ready to hand. I remember, in regard to one of the former Bills, being able to state to the House that one of the recommendations was that it was convenient, from the staff point of view, to bring them all under one roof; in the case of one office the staff was under seventeen different roofs. It is quite impossible that business can be properly administered under such circumstances. I do not see much force in the remark of my hon. friend that we should do better to remain as we are. I maintain that all the chief administrative departments ought to be close together. By placing them close together the general efficiency of the service would be promoted. I wish to make one or two remarks with reference to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. The First Commissioner told us that he has taken power in this Bill to connect the public offices in Downing Street by an archway. That would be extremely convenient, and will tend to improve the alignment of Whitehall. I am glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman has come to a friendly settlement with the Institution of Engineers.
1192
There was an impression prevalent that there had been some sort of promise made to them, but it was not made through myself, nor has there been any understanding of that character given with my sanction. I am glad that we have not had to use compulsory powers, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon having arrived at a friendly settlement. It will be a great improvement if, during the re-building of the new Institution for the Civil Engineers, Prince's Street is widened, because that will tend to relieve the congestion of traffic a good deal, and will certainly improve that locality.
*MR. HARCOURT: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said about my negotiations with the Institution of Civil Engineers. I ought first to correct a misapprehension which might arise from my previous speech. In relation to the Institute of Civil Engineers, what I intended to convey was that a friendly agreement having been arrived at with them I hoped that there was no prospect of the compulsory powers of the Bill having to be put into operation against them. But owing to the terms of our agreement it is desirable that the Bill should be passed in the form in which it is presented, and no amendment will be necessary. I hope that after I have replied to the various points which have been raised the House will be willing to come to a decision upon this measure. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London made several observations and asked several questions, and I should have been glad to have given him the information personally, if he had been here to receive it. He said it was an extraordinary proposition that the cost of re-paving Prince's Street, consequent upon the widening of that thoroughfare, should be paid by the Westminster City Council. I may point out that we are offering to the City of Westminster a valuable accommodation for which we have to pay, and all we are asking in return is that the council shall undertake the paving of the piece of ground we are offering them for the convenience of the traffic. The idea that it would be the more economical course to adapt the building of the Civil Engineers to the purposes of the Board

1193
of Trade would, I think, be dispelled by a visit to that institution. Unless it had been found absolutely necessary it would not have been proposed to destroy so valuable a building. I regret that owing apparently to some misunderstanding it should have been erected on a site which to many people must have seemed more or less earmarked for Government purposes. The present distribution of the work of the Board of Trade among many private houses in many parts of London greatly hampers the efficiency of the office. When the Board is accommodated in one building, there will be a saving of the rent of other buildings which will be surrendered. The hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool asked several legal questions on Clause 2, but I should have thought, from the point of view of convenience, they would have been dealt with best in Committee, because they were mere technical points of procedure. With regard to the point raised on subsection (a) of Clause 2 by the hon. Member, I may say, if it is any satisfaction to him, that there will be no superfluous land, and if there is it will go into the street. There is no departure under subsection (a) from the ordinary course. The hon. Member also made an allusion to subsection (e) of Clause 2, which he thought was unusual. I can assure him that is not so, for the provision is a common one. The noble Lord the Member for Chorley put some questions to me, and he expressed some doubts as to whether it is necessary that I should take power to construct an archway over Downing Street. I am not sure that it is necessary, but I have certainly not sacrificed or prejudiced any right in the future by inserting this provision. I have, however, made the position of my successors easier. If they wish to construct an archway, no doubt can be cast on their power to do so. The noble Lord also referred to the proposal to pull down the building of the Institution of Civil Engineers as an extremely costly course. It has been suggested that the building probably cost £200,000. I do not know what the original cost was, but I know how much is being accepted for it. [An HON. MEMBER: How much?] Roughly, £40,000. This money has been provided out of the Public Buildings Expenses Act,
1194
1903, passed for that purpose by hon. Gentlemen opposite and their Government. It is not the case that out of that money the Government are constructing a new building for the Civil Engineers. With the money paid to them, the latter will erect a new building. It is not the erection of a new building which the Government undertook, but the purchase of a building which for our own purposes we wish to destroy. It is a mistake to suppose that I am arranging in this Bill for some borrowing in the future. The borrowing is all done under the Act of 1903. The £600,000 from the realised surplus of last year produces without borrowing the money necessary for building on the site when it has been acquired. The moment the Bill passes I will proceed to the acquisition of the site, after which the demolition of the old buildings and the erection of the new one will follow without delay. The building, which will be completed in accordance with the designs of the late Mr. Brydon, will not be in addition to existing accommodation. It will take the place of a large number of existing buildings, but it will provide better accommodation than they do. The cost of the buildings—which I hope may be completed in a few years—with other incidental expenses included, will be covered by the £600,000. I think I have answered the questions put to me by hon. Members, and I hope the House will now be not unwilling to go to a division.
MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid he did not think very much remained to be said on the merits of this proposal, but, after the criticisms they had heard, it appeared to him that there was some evidence of what they might call bungling. He thought the Office of Works ought to have had their eyes open to the fact that this site was suitable for a public building, and could have been obtained ten or twelve years ago, when it came into the market. It was allowed to go to the body of Civil Engineers, and £40,000 had been entirely thrown away. It might be that the First Commissioner was not personally responsible, but the Office he represented was responsible, and the House would be wrong if it allowed the Bill to pass without criticism

1195
of the fact that a valuable site had been permitted to go, and that now a building worth £40,000 was ruthlessly to be pulled down in order to erect buildings which at the time the site could have been got it might have been conceived would speedily be required. Apart from that, they had the broad fact that something like £600,000 was going to be added to the capital of the public debt in order to carry out this new scheme. That might be a small sum to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Commissioner, but to him it appeared a very large sum. He would have expected the First Commissioner to commence with an apology in regard to the sum of money involved. He respected the clear statement which the First Commissioner had made; but he might have commenced, at all events, with a reference to the broad fact that £600,000 had to be spent on the building. He was not at all satisfied with the explanation of his right hon. friend on the Front Bench, who would forgive him for suggesting that there was a certain contagion which came from the occupancy of a public office, and that probably he sympathised with the particular expenditure which was now under criticism. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Augustine's said he thought that this expenditure was reasonable and that he had undertaken it. But it came to this, that this expenditure was to carry out an elevation plan. He did not think it could be said that there was any particular merit about the elevation plan. He agreed with the criticism of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London that the building might have been designed for the purpose of looking æsthetic and pretty, an architect's elevation plan, but he was perfectly certain that for ordinary everyday office work the building was not suitable nor well ventilated. Even the new public offices were not well ventilated; they had heavy stone points, great mullions, and small windows. He was entirely of the opinion of the hon. Member for the City that a considerable saving might have been effected. What the hon. Baronet said was quite correct, that they would have lots of demands from officials for more and more accom-
1196
modation—rooms for porters and all sorts of things. It was the usual story. They were acquainted with it in private firms. The head clerk wanted a room, and then he needed a porter to open the door. But in public departments the abuse was infinitely worse. This House had been built for the transaction of public business, but there was scarcely a room to which a Member could take a friend to discuss any matter. It was the same no doubt at the Board of Trade offices, and in a year or two they would be having a demand—indeed, the First Commissioner of Works had hinted at it—for increased accommodation and more buildings, and so again the public purse would be called upon for large sums to be spent partly on the decoration of Westminster and to a very small extent on public work. He did not know why the Board of Trade should not go a little further west, where ground could be obtained at a smaller cost. It might be said that it would not be so convenient for the officials of the Board of Trade to drive in their cabs and motor cars, and not quite so convenient to Members, though he did not see why it was not as easy to pass one way as the other. It really would be equally as convenient, and he did not know any reason against it except that some architect had managed to get the ear of officials and have his plans brought forward and approved as æsthetic and artistic, but perhaps neither economical nor effective for their purpose. He laid emphasis on this subject, because he thought it was the duty of the House to look after the expenditure of public funds. They could do a good deal in the country with £600,000, if they only had the chance of getting hold of such a sum. But here they had the First Commissioner treating it with a light and airy touch, quite pleasing until they discovered what it meant; but he thought it was the business of an ordinary every-day business man who was a Member of that House to protest against it. The oftener the House entered its protest and made it self heard on such topics the better chance would there be of these abuses being stopped. Money saved on these smaller matters would go a very long way with Chancellors of the Exchequer in their Budgets; but

1197
whether that were so or not, he must protest against such an expenditure coming from a Government pledged to economy. He hoped that the protest made on this occasion would be borne in mind, and that public money would not be so easily granted to the officials of public departments.
MR. FELLsaid he could not help thinking that a great mistake had been made in the course of the last few years with regard to these public offices. They had the Board of Trade offices, which were totally inadequate, and for the next four or five years they must remain in that condition. They had on the other hand a vast block of buildings which had been just erected, and which he believed was not wanted anything like so much by the departments which were going to occupy it as by the Board of Trade. At the end of four or five years they would have the magnificent site of the Board of Trade buildings, only a part of which was covered at the present time. He believed there was a tennis court and other things of that kind, which showed that there was a very large space of ground. This vacant piece of land was to be handed over to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests at the end of the period. He had very great doubts as to its being put to any good use by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests; no doubt they would try to get the largest income they could out of it and out of the present Board of Trade buildings. But if the Board of Trade had been moved to the new buildings at the present time, the available site could have been used for the erection of great blocks of offices amply sufficient for any further requirements of the Government. No one could say that the site was not in a good position. He granted that Whitehall was a fine and open roadway, but he would liken it more to a motor car track than anything else. It was almost impossible to cross that roadway at the present time with safety.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman's remarks apply almost to everything except what is in this Bill.
MR. FELL: As to the archway in Downing Street, was it proposed to
1198
close that thoroughfare where was situate the official residence of the Prime Minister?
*MR. HARCOURT: I take no power to close the street.
MR. FELLsaid they were temporarily closing Downing Street for the purpose of erecting the archway, but it interrupted access to the Prime Minister's house. He did not know whether the archway had only an artistic value, whether it was to be used as a means of communication between the two buildings, or whether it was simply intended to have an archway similar to the one opposite. There were many other points connected with the Bill. He did not see why there should be additional powers taken for prosecutions and fines in the case of people who wilfully obstructed the Commissioners in the lawful exercise of their powers. Offenders were to be prosecuted before a Court of summary jurisdiction, and the fine was not to exceed £5. He did not see why the Commissioners should seek special powers to prosecute those who obstructed them. The ordinary powers of the law, he should have thought, were sufficient. If the position of the Commissioners was correct they could certainly exercise the ordinary powers. Why they should seek special penal powers he really failed to see.
*MR. MORTONsaid the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London had called his attention to the Bill on the ground of public economy. He was glad the hon. Baronet mentioned the word economy, because on Wednesday he had voted for the reverse of economy as far as the people of London were concerned. He would like to keep the hon. Baronet as consistent as possible, because although he did not represent him entirely in the City of London, in the absence of the Leader of the Opposition he was all he had got. He was always in favour of economy, especially in dealing with other people's money, but he could not oppose the Bill, because in 1894, when the consideration of these schemes for improvement in the public buildings was brought about by himself and others they found, and he supposed it still continued,

1199
that a great many of the public departments had offices all over the place; that was especially so with regard to the War Office, the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board; and what they said then was that by concentrating these buildings and getting the officials all together, a great saving might be made in rent and in other ways. He remembered that eventually he got a Committee, presided over by the present Home Secretary, out of which arose the improved War Office, and so on. He admitted that the succeeding Government carried the work on until they completed the widening of Parliament Street also. He did not for a moment consider that that improvement had been completed, and therefore he could not consistently oppose his right hon. friend in endeavouring to complete that work. He asked the right hon. Gentleman in this or any other improvement he made to try and see that a good line of frontage was set on and adhered to. There was nothing so miserable as one side of Whitehall where they saw the old buildings to the north of Downing Street not in line with the newer buildings on the other side of Downing Street. He admitted that in the new buildings, both the War Office and those at the corner of Great George Street, there was a great improvement in that respect, but he hoped his right hon. Friend would bear that in mind. He was not instructed by the City of London to oppose the Bill in any way whatever, and he could not oppose it in regard to streets, and so on, but there were a number of things in the Bill that could properly be considered in Committee, and he quite agreed that it should go to a Select Committee, where all interests might be considered. With regard to the closing of streets, as a rule, unless it was a cul de sac, a street could not be closed without the consent of the magistrates; the magistrates only gave their consent as a rule after hearing the local authorities, to whom
notice must be given, and they compelled whoever closed the street and took possession of the ground to give some quid pro quo to the public. He did not know whether in any of the places the right hon. Gentleman was going to close, he intended to give something in return for what he took away from the public. Of course, in the City of London, they had to be exceedingly careful about closing any place, because they could get all over the City without going down a main street at all—there were so many courts—and, but for these communications, they could not get about in the City. They objected to the closing of any street whatever unless they got it something in return, not for themselves but for the public. He had no doubt that all these things, which were matters of detail, would be considered.
*MR. HARCOURT: We are widening Charles Street, Great George Street, and part of Princes Street, all of great benefit to the public, in consideration of the small amount of convenience, if any, that is taken from them.
*MR. MORTONsaid he could not oppose the Bill, because it was carrying out his own suggestion to improve the offices. No doubt the War Office was a great improvement, but some of the public buildings of London were a disgrace to the greatest city in the world. He believed the object of the Government and the late Government in following up what was commenced in 1894 and 1895, was to concentrate the offices and get all officials of the Departments into one building. He should watch the progress of the Bill with interest in regard to economy. He was glad the hon. Baronet had mentioned the word "economy" and hoped in future he would not forget it.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 263; Noes, 38. (Division List No. 91.)

AYES

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Acland, Francis Dyke

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Astbury John Meir

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Armitage, R.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Agnew, George William

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Barker, John

Flynn, James Christopher

Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston)

Barnard, E. B.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Marnham, F. J.

Barnes, G. N.

Fullerton, Hugh

Massie, J.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Gilhooly, James

Masterman, C. F. G.

Beauchamp, E.

Gill, A. H.

Meagher, Michael

Bellairs, Carlyon

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

Meehan, Francis E.(Leitrim, N.)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Glover, Thomas

Micklem, Nathaniel

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

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Molteno, Percy Alport

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Black, Arthur W.

Grayson, Albert Victor

Montagu, E. S.

Boland, John

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Montgomery, H. G.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Gulland, John W.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Bowerman, C. W.

Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W. Brampton

Morrell, Philip

Brace, William

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Morse, L. L.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Hall, Frederick

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Branch, James

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Murnaghan, George

Brigg, John

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

Myer, Horatio

Brocklehurst, W. B.

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

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

Brooke, Stopford

Haworth, Arthur A.

Nolan, Joseph

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

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Brunner, Rt Hn. Sir J. T (Cheshire

Helme, Norval Watson

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Bryce, J. Annan

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

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

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Higham, John Sharp

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

O'Doherty, Philip

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hodge, John

O'Grady, J.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Hogan, Michael

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Byles, William Pollard

Holt, Richard Durning

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Cameron, Robert

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Partington, Oswald

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Horniman, Emslie John

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hudson, Walter

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Idris, T. H. W.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Cleland, J. W.

Jackson, R. S.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Clough, William

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Power, Patrick Joseph

Clynes, J. R.

Jardine, Sir J.

Radford, G. H.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Reddy, M.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Redmond, William (Clare)

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

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Rees, J. D.

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Jowett, F. W.

Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Joyce, Michael

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

Cox, Harold

Kearley, Hudson E.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Crean, Eugene

Kekewich, Sir George

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Kelley, George D.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Crooks, William

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Robertson, Sir G Scott(Bradf'rd

Crossley, William J.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Cullinan, J.

Kilbride, Denis

Robinson, S.

Curran, Peter Francis

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Dalziel, James Henry

Laidlaw, Robert

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Russell, T. W.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lambert, George

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lamont, Norman

Sears, J. E.

Delany, William

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Seaverns, J. H.

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

Lehmann, R. C.

Shackleton, David James

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

Levy, Sir Maurice

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Donelan, Captain A.

Lewis, John Herbert

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Duckworth, James

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

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Stanger, H. Y.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Elibank, Master of

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Steadman, W. C.

Erskine, David C.

Macpherson, J. T.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Everett, R. Lacey

M'Callum, John M.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Fenwick, Charles

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Summerbell, T.

Ferens, T. R.

Mallet, Charles E.

Sutherland, J. E.

Ffrench, Peter

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Findlay, Alexander

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

1202

1203

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Walton, Joseph

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

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

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Waring, Walter

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

Tillett, Louis John

Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Tomkinson, James

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Watt, Henry A.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Toulmin, George

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Winfrey, R.

Verney, F. W.

White, J. D. (Dumbatronshire)

Yoxall, James Henry

Wadsworth, J.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Walsh, Stephen

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Walters, John Tudor

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Pease.

NOES.

Ashley, W. W.

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Lambton, Hon Frederick Wm.

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Cave, George

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Thornton, Perey M.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Morpeth, Viscount

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire

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

Parkes, Ebenezer

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

Craik, Sir Henry

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Younger, George

Cross, Alexander

Renton, Leslie

Dalrymple, Viscount

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Frederick Banbury and Mr.

Fell, Arthur

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

George Faber.

Bill read a second time.

Bill committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, Three to be nominated by the House, and Two by the Committee of Selection.
Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented Five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents be heard against the Bill, and Counsel or Agents heard in support of the Bill.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Three be the Quorum.—(Mr. Harcourt.)

POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): In moving the Second Reading of this Bill I desire to say at the outset
1204
that it is a very simple measure and a continuation of the policy already adopted in regard to the Post Office Savings Bank. Under the Act of 1904, acknowledgement is abolished in the case of deposits under £1 as it is found to be unnecessary, and the result of the abolition is a saving of £30,000 to the Exchequer in clerical work, printing, and other directions. It is now proposed to abolish acknowledgment of deposits up to £5, which will result in an estimated saving of £15,000. As a matter of fact, the smaller depositors do not pay any regard to the acknowledgment, very seldom keeping it as an evidence of their deposits. They would much rather not have it in many cases, because, coming by post on official blue paper, it is an indication to their friends and neighbours that they have a deposit, which they do not desire should be publicly known. [Cries of "Why not?"] I only mention it incidentally, but it is the view taken by a very large number of small depositors, so that no objection to the abolition of the acknowledgments will come from the depositors themselves. The Postmaster-General will fix the limit up to which no acknowledgment will be sent, but it will not exceed £5. The whole matter will be most carefully watched, and if any

1205
disadvantages accrue in the direction of fraud or any other way we shall not hesitate to go back to the old system. The danger that some people anticipate is that it may lead to a certain temptation to Post Office servants to fraud and embezzlement. I am glad to know that that has not been our experience. During the years 1899–1904 there were thirteen cases of embezzlement of Savings Bank deposits by Post Office servants, and in only three was it due to the acknowledgment which then existed. In each of those three cases the deposit was over the limit of £5. Since the Act of 1904 there have been several cases of embezzlement, and in only one has the acknowledgment been of service in preventing the fraud or assisting in its discovery. The risk of embezzlement is very slight, because its discovery almost immediately follows the offence. The depositors' books are constantly being examined, because small sums are continually being taken out and put in, and consequently any embezzlement would be immediately detected. The risk of discovery is so great that the temptation is reduced to a minimum. At all events as regards the abolition of acknowledgments up to £1 it has not led to any increase in embezzlement on the part of the Post Office servants. The proposal in this Bill is an experiment, and if it is found unsuccessful we shall not hesitate about going back to the old system. On the other hand, if it is a success it will save us an expenditure of £15,000 a year, and I think the very small risk involved is worth taking. I beg to move.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time"—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
LORD R. CECILsaid he looked upon this Bill with a certain amount of doubt because, though the figures of the Postmaster-General were perfectly accurate, the temptation to embezzlement was much greater when they dealt with larger figures. He did not propose to ask the House to take a hostile action against the main purpose of the Bill, but its form was as bad as it could possibly be. They were dealing
1206
with a subject that closely affected poor and, to some extent, illiterate, or not very highly educated, people. Therefore it was of the utmost importance that their rights should be defined in the clearest possible way, and that they should know when they were and were not entitled to protection. The Bill did not define a limit but left it to be fixed by the Department, and investors had no means of knowing whether they were entitled to an acknowledgment or not. Apart from that, the Bill was one of the worst examples of legislation by reference ever brought before the House. He would read to the House Section 1, which was as follows—
"1. Section eleven of the Savings Banks Act, 1904, which relates to the discontinuance of acknowledgments of deposits under one pound shall extend and apply to deposits not exceeding such maximum amount as may from time to time be fixed by regulations made by the Postmaster-General with the consent of the Treasury under the Post Office Savings Bank Acts, 1861 to 1904."
Imagine putting a section like that in the hands of an educated layman or even a lawyer. He defied any hon. Member to take up the Bill and know what it meant until he had consulted the previous Act. In the House of Commons they were able to consult Statutes without much trouble, but that was not the case with people outside. When he went back to the Act of 1904 he was still left in the dark, and he had to go further back to the Act of 1884. On taking up the other Act, he was faced with a lot of sections, the reading of which would show the bewilderment in which members of the public would be if they followed the course which he had been compelled to pursue in order to understand what this clause meant. He asked the House to conceive the bewilderment of a depositor who, having searched through two Acts of Parliament, was brought up to a long and obscure clause ending with the words toties quoties. Not only so, but the greater part of that Act was totally inapplicable to an entry in a deposit book. A great deal of it dealt with what would happen if a depositor did not receive an acknowledgment, and how many days' grace were to be given to the Post Office before the Postmaster-General was prosecuted for, he presumed,

1207
embezzlement. He did not himself exactly understand what was meant by the Act of 1904, which for this purpose was included in the Bill, where it said that an entry in the deposit book would be conclusive evidence of title in the same manner as an acknowledgment of a deposit by the Postmaster-General. Neither time nor words were saved by this method of legislation by reference. Any competent draftsman would put what was intended in the same number of lines without any reference whatever. All that had to be said was that the entry in the deposit book was to be conclusive evidence of the claim of the depositor. Any reasonably educated depositor would understand what that meant, but, as expressed in the Bill, he would not understand it a bit. He had protested more than once against this form of legislation. He believed it was done deliberately to make it difficult for Members of the House to understand what it was proposed to enact. It was not the draftsman who was to blame, but the Government who gave the instructions. It was to save them trouble; it was one of those clever devices which they were encouraged in by the official mind. In order to give the House an opportunity of expressing an opinion on this form of legislation, and in order to give the Government time to redraft the Bill and bring it up in proper form, be begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
CAPTAIN CRAIGin seconding the Motion said that the Postmaster-General did not seem to understand his own Bill, for during the discussion he had sent the hon. Member for South Tyrone to fetch the Acts of 1861 and 1884 in order that he might understand it. The drafting of the Bill was faulty, and if passed as it stood it would be unworkable. The explanation of the Bill given by the Postmaster-General was quite inadequate. There was to be, as the result of this Bill, a problematical saving of about £15,000 a year in connection with the work of a department whose profits were something fabulous. Surely it was going beyond reason to ask the House to pass a Bill which was to effect such a saving in connection with what was really the
1208
State bank for the poorer classes. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that there were very few cases in the memory of man where any default had taken place after a deposit had been made. But was not prevention better than cure. The popularity of the Post Office Savings Bank had depended on the extraordinary safeguards provided for making the deposits secure, and he did not think these safeguards should be taken away.
*MR. SPEAKER: The Motion now before the House is for the adjournment of the debate. The hon. Member is not speaking to that Motion.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he hoped the House would recognise the reasons which made it desirable to ask the Postmaster-General for a better Bill
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now. adjourned."—(Lord Robert Cecil.)
MR. REESsaid he was astonished that such an objection to this Bill should come from the noble Lord because it was entirely owing to the influence of the profession which he adorned that the difficulty arose.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss that. The Motion before the House now is only one for the adjournment of the debate.
*MR. REES: In that case, Sir, I really do not know to what I am to address myself. I thought as the noble Lord moved the adjournment of the debate, I might refer to what he said, but as that is not so I can only say that this is a very short Bill, and is either a good or a bad one, and in no case can putting off its consideration be of any advantage.
*MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord spoke on the Second Reading, and he concluded by moving the adjournment. That limits the discussion to the question of the adjournment.
*MR. REESsaid the noble Lord's reasons for moving the adjournment, besides not being good in themselves, proceeded from what was, in a Parliamentary sense, and for the reason he

1209
had given, what he might without offence describe as a tainted source. If he could not reply to the speech of the noble Lord he did not know to what he should address himself.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid the Postmaster-General himself gave ample reason why the debate should be adjourned. Among other things the right hon. Gentleman said there had been no defalcations worth considering. If that was so, why have a £5 limit?
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now discussing the merits of the Bill.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had given ample reason for the adjournment. If the drafting of the Bill were amended it would be made more acceptable.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: We limit it to £5.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that if the Bill passed in its present form the operation might be limited to £1. The debate having clearly shown that the wording of the Bill was unsatisfactory, surely it was in the interest of public business that the measure should be withdrawn, remodelled, and re-introduced. It would then pass in a few minutes.
MR. HAROLD COXsaid that the Motion for the adjournment was unnecessary, for last year when this same subject of legislation by reference came up on a Post Office Bill—the Post Office was one of the worst offenders in this respect—the Postmaster-General very cordially agreed to remove that feature in Committee, and when the Bill reached Committee it was got rid of.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 41; Noes, 236. (Division List No. 92.)

AYES.

Ashley, W. W.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Balcarres, Lord

Hamilton, Marquess of

Starkey, John R.

Baldwin, Stanley

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Thornton, Percy M.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Valentia, Viscount

Cave, George

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Parkes, Ebenezer

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

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington,

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Younger, George

Craik, Sir Henry

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Cross, Alexander

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Lord Robert Cecil and Cap-

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan,

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

tain Craig.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Bowerman, C. W.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Brace, William

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

Acland, Francis Dyke

Bramsdon, T. A.

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

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Branch, James

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Brigg, John

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Armitage, R.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Cox, Harold

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

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

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Astbury, John Meir

Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J. T (Cheshire)

Crean, Eugene

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Bryce, J. Annan

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Barnes, G. N.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Crooks, William

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Crossley, William J.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Cullinan, J.

Beauchamp, E.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Curran, Peter Francis

Bellairs, Carlyon

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Davies, David(Montgomery Co.

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

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Bothell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Cameron, Robert

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Black, Arthur W.

Cleland, J. W.

Delany, William

Boland, John

Clough, William

Devlin, Joseph

Boulton, A. C. F.

Clynes, J. R.

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

Donelan, Captain A.

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Duckworth, James

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Levy, Sir Maurice

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Elibank, Master of

Lewis, John Herbert

Robinson, S.

Erskine, David O.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Esslemont, George Birnie

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Everett, R. Lacey

Macpherson, J. T.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Fenwick, Charles

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Russell, T. W.

Ferens, T. R.

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Findlay, Alexander

M'Callum, John M.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

M'Crae, George

Sears, J. E.

Fullerton, Hugh

M'Hugh, Patrick A

Seaverns, J. H.

Gill, A. H.

M'Kean, John

Shackleton, David James

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

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

Markham, Arthur Basil

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Glover, Thomas

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Stanger, H. Y.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Marnham, F. J.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Massie, J.

Steadman, W. C.

Grayson, Albert Victor

Masterman, C. F. G.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Meagher, Michael

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W. Brampton

Micklem, Nathaniel

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Hall, Frederick

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Summerbell, T.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Montagu, E. S.

Sutherland, J. E.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Montgomery, H. G.

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Hayden, John Patrick

Morrell, Philip

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Morse, L. L.

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Hazleton Richard

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Helme, Norval Watson

Murnaghan, George

Tomkinson, James

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Higham, John Sharp

Myer, Horatio

Verney, F. W.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Napier, T. B.

Wadsworth, J.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Hodge, John

Nolan, Joseph

Walsh, Stephen

Hogan, Michael

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Walter, John Tudor

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Ward, W. Dudely (Southampt'n

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

Warning, Walter

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

Wason, JohnCathcart (Orkney)

Hudson, Walter

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Watt, Henry A.

Hyde, Clarendon

O'Doherty, Philip

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Idris, T. H. W.

O'Grady, J.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Jackson, R. S.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Jardine, Sir J.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Whitehead, Rowland

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Partington, Oswald

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Joyce, Michael

Power, Patrick Joseph

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

Kearley, Hudson E.

Pullar, Sir Robert

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

Kekewich, Sir George

Radford, G. H.

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Kelley, George D.

Reddy, M.

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

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Redmond, William (Clare)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Kilbride, Denis

Rees, J. D.

Winfrey, R.

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

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

TELLERS FOR THE Noes—Mr.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Lamont, Norman

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Pease.

Original Question again proposed.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he ventured to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider, when the Bill was in Committee, the alteration of the wording so as to make it more easy to understand. The speech of the noble Lord must have con-
1212
vinced the right hon. Gentleman of the great public inconvenience that would result if the Bill passed in its present form.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he did not think that this was a Bill to which the particular condemnation of the noble

1213
Lord really applied. All the information required by the depositor was contained in the Savings Bank-book, and in other documents which were given to him, and no clause in an Act of Parliament, however clear, would really affect him in any way. When the deposit was received that was the opportunity for making matters clear to him. He did not think that any clause in a Bill of this sort would make things clearer from his
point of view. If he acceded to the suggestion made and if the Bill was not to be one by reference a very large number of sections of different Acts would have to be brought in. He was afraid he could not agree to make any alteration in the Bill.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 215;Noes, 44. (Division List No. 93.)

AYES

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Donelan, Captain A.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Duckworth, James

Lamont, Norman

Acland. Francis Dyke

Elibank, Master of

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Erskine, David C.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Armitage, R.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Levy, Sir Maurice

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Lewis, John Herbert

Astbury, John Meir

Everett, R. Lacey

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Fenwick, Charles

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Barnes, G. N.

Ferens, T. R.

Macpherson, J. T.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Findlay, Alexander

MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Callum, John M.

Beauchamp, E.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

M'Crae, George

Bellairs, Carlyon

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Bethell, Sir JH. (Essex, Romf'r

Fullerton, Hugh

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Gill, A. H.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Black, Arthur W.

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

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Glover, Thomas

Massie, J.

Bowerman, C. W.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Masterman, C. F. G.

Brace, William

Grayson, Albert Victor

Meagher, Michael

Bramsdon, T. A.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Branch, James

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Micklem, Nathaniel

Brigg, John

Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W. Brampton

Molteno, Percy Alport

Brocklehurst. W. B.

Hall, Frederick

Montgomery, H. G.

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

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J. T (Cheshire

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Morrel, Philip

Bryce, J. Annan

Haworth, Arthur A.

Morse, L. L.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Helme, Norval Watson

Murnaghan, George

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Higham, John Sharp

Myer, Horatio

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hobart, Sir Robert

Napier, T. B.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Cameron, Robert

Hodge, John

Nolan, Joseph

Cleland, J. W.

Hogan, Michael

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Clough, William

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Clynes, J. R.

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley,

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

Hudson, Walter

O'Doherty, Philip

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

Hyde, Clarendon

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Idris, T. H. W.

O'Grady, J.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Cox, Harold

Jackson, R. S.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Jardine, Sir J.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Crean, Eugene

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Partington, Oswald

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Crooks, William

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Crossley, William J.

Joyce, Michael

Power, Patrick Joseph

Cullinan, J.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Radford, G. H.

Curran, Peter Francis

Kekewich, Sir George

Reddy, M.

Davies, David(Montgomery Co.)

Kelley, George D

Redmond, William (Clare)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Rees, J. D.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Kilbride, Denis

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Delany, William

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

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

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Watt, Henry A.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Robertson, Sir G Scott(Bradf'rd

Strachey, Sir Edward

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Robinson, S.

Summerbell, T.

Whitehead, Rowland

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Sutherland, J. E.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Russell, T. W.

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

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

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Tomkinson, James

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Sears, J. E.

Torrance, Sir A. M.

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

Seaverns, J. H.

Wadsworth, J.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Shackleton, David James

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Winfrey, R.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Walsh, Stephen

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Waring, Walter

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Steadman, W. C.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Pease.

NOES.

Ashley, W. W.

Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hamilton, Marquess of

Starkey, John R.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hope, James Fitzalan(Sheffield)

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Cave, George

Houston, Robert Paterson

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Valentia, Viscount

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

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

Parkes, Ebenezer

Willoughby, de Eresby, Lord

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Younger, George

Craik, Sir Henry

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Cross, Alexander

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Dalrymple, Viscount

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Frederick Banbury and Mr.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

George Faber.

Question put, and agreed to.

NATIVE AFFAIRS (SOUTH AFRICA).
*MR. ALDENin moving "That this House, recognising signs of a growing opinion on the part of the self-governing Colonies of South Africa in favour of safeguarding the rights and future of the natives in any scheme of political unification or federation, expresses its confidence that his Majesty's Government will welcome the adoption of provisions calculated to render possible the ultimate inclusion of the whole of British South Africa in federal union," said that he thought the House would admit that he spoke with no feeling of hostility whatever to our self-governing Colonies, and in no spirit of carping criticism. Indeed, the reverse was the case, for they on those benches were great believers in self-government, and he thought they might claim that the Liberal Party, in giving self-government to the Transvaal and
1216
Orange Free State, had manifested its belief in self-government. Therefore, he trusted there would be no feeling either here or in South Africa that, because they raised this question of safeguarding the future interests of the natives in South Africa, they did so in any hostile spirit, in any ungenerous frame of mind, or with any desire unduly to interfere with affairs in South Africa. He recognised that the very delicate and difficult position in which the Colonies were situated at present rendered it all the more necessary that they should be careful in the words they uttered, and to the best of his ability he would endeavour to say nothing which would give offence to any Member of the House, or anyone who had the interests of South Africa and of our self-governing Colonies at heart. It would be admitted that the question of federation or political unification in some form or shape was within measurable distance. It was not for him to say—he imagined it would be very difficult for any Member of the House to say—what form or shape that

1217
federation would take. So far from any desire to dictate to South Africa, he was quite convinced that they were anxious for them to promote union amongst themselves in the best way possible, without any interference whatever on our part., except in so far as this Resolution implied that this country had a, direct responsibility for the natives in South Africa. They were bound to ask themselves, if federation was near at hand, and judging by the signs of the times it seemed to be approaching, what would be the position of the natives under the new regime. It could not be denied that the Imperial Government had a direct responsibility for the subject races in Basutoland, Bechuanaland, and Swaziland, where there were something like 2,000,000 natives, and a less direct responsibility in Rhodesia. Might he begin by saving that those who were associated with him in this Resolution were fully in accord with the High Commissioner in his statement circulated as a White Paper on the subject? Might he quote one or two sentences from that Circular and from the subsequent speech? The High Commissioner said—
"Do not deny to natives those elementary principles of justice you always claim."
In effect he said that there must be a moral as well as a political foundation if South Africa was to be at peace. He bade the whites approach the subject—
"With an intense sense of responsibility and believe absolutely in the right of the native to receive true justice."
He went, on to say, and these were very significant words—
"No reasoning man can live in this country and doubt that the existence here of a white community must, from first to last, depend upon their success or failure in finding a right solution of the coloured native questions or, in other words, upon the wisdom they can show in determining the relative places which the white, coloured, and native population are to fill. It would, indeed, be a hideous error to suppose that the white people of this country are discharged of responsibility by perfecting an arrangement for enforcing order among the native population. The mission they have undertaken is of a far higher and more difficult nature than that, and one which calls for the inspiration of the statesman rather than that of the soldier."
That fearlessly expressed opinion of the High Commissioner he believed every man in the House would endorse, and
1218
it was specially important now if federation was on the horizon. At a subsequent meeting, on 7th December, speaking at Benoni he said—
"I would ask you to draw two morals from the situation with which we are confronted to-day. Great matters, more especially the relations between the white races and the native races, can never be permanently regarded as a Natal or Transvaal question. It is a South African question."
It was just because it was a South African question that they had moved this Resolution. He knew what would be said by some people—not many—outside, and he believed by some people in South Africa. It would be said that they were unduly interfering in South African affairs. What did they know about the natives? What right had they to interfere on behalf of the natives? Were they not likely to disrupt the Empire if they kept on expressing opinions with regard to the treatment of the native races? His answer to that was, first, that they could not discharge themselves of the solemn responsibility of safeguarding native rights. It was placed upon them, and until it was taken away from them they must do their duty. And, secondly, he believed that those who were careless in their treatment of the native races, who were inclined to regard them rather as tools than as men—he believed those were the people who were more likely to cause the disruption of the Empire. For the House would remember that South Africa was not made up of whites, and that something like four and a half millions of coloured men lived in South Africa, that they were increasing very rapidly, and that there were only a million whites in South Africa and not rapidly increasing in number. They had somehow or other to assimilate the blacks or to associate with themselves the coloured races in the work of government in order that South Africa might be consolidated. They could not drive the blacks into the sea even if they would. He imagined no-one who had any humanitarian instincts whatever would wish to do so. And yet some speeches had been made in South Africa—he admitted by not very representative men—which seemed to imply that the blacks were only there for our convenience, that in so far as we could use them it was to the good,

1219
and, so far as they were willing to submit to us in every possible way, and to work for us and make money for us, they were of some use. He contended that that sort of doctrine was dangerous not only to the whites in South Africa but to the Empire as a whole. Lord Selborne's words which he had quoted at some length justified this Resolution, but if further justification was required it would be found in the various Blue-books that had been issued with regard to native affairs in South Africa, notably the South African Native Affairs Commission, and the two recent Blue-books on native affairs in South Africa. Might he quote one passage from the most recent Bluebook that had been issued, the Report of the Under-Secretary for Native Affairs Mr. Samuelson. That Report was more or less an answer—whether it was a complete answer or not he left the House to judge—to the Report of the Commission which was appointed by the Natal Government. Mr. Samuelson said on Page 43 of the Report—
"The subject population feels that it is not being governed in its own interests, but rather in the interests of the white population. Administrative reforms cannot be agreeably carried out in an atmosphere of racial antipathy, exclusiveness, and sectional selfishness. Palliative fresh enactments will be practically valueless if confidence is not regained and reestablished. So long as the European population of the Colony regards the Natives as the nobility of France regarded the proletariat before the Revolution, little progress can be made towards a permanent settlement."
He quoted this passage as showing how Mr. Samuelson admitted their whole contention that the natives in the past had suffered from many breaches of faith on the part of the white population, and that until they could restore confidence to the natives in the justice of their rule they would run serious risk as it seemed to him of rendering impossible federation in South Africa. It was often said that the native must be treated somewhat harshly because he was incorrigibly lazy and because the future of South Africa depended upon his being compelled to work. That was the sort of argument which, if not openly used, was, at any rate, in a great many people's minds. He contended that the two Reports to which he had alluded on native affairs both showed that this was
1220
not the case. Section 373 of the South African Native Affairs Commission said—
"The labour of tilling the soil is shared but by no means exclusively performed by native women, and the representation of the native living at his own village, a lazy, luxurious life supported by his wife or wives, is misleading."
Later on there was a passage which showed that since the plough had taken the place of the hoe, men and boys were doing the work which women used to do. It was not true to say that the native was uniformly lazy. He did not know that he was as lazy as a good many men in England who had the opportunity of work and failed to do it. Section 376 read as follows—
"Except in the case of farm labour, which is especially suited to the native, it must not be forgotten that what is known as paid labour generally means to the native as a rule absence from home and family and in some employments irksome and even hard and dangerous work, and the abandonment of the ease, comforts, and pleasures of native village life."
He thought they were rather apt to overlook the fact that the native who worked in the mines often had to walk hundreds of miles before performing his irksome duties. He had to leave the comfort of his home Life, and for a comparatively small sum of money engage in a very unpleasant occupation. He occasionally had to suffer from harsh and unjust treatment, and he had also to pay the top prices for everything he bought. Therefore, he did not think the native ought to be regarded as lazy, because he preferred agricultural employment to working in the mine. It should not be overlooked that only about half the workers in South Africa could be detached from their usual vocation. There must be someone left to till the soil if the natives were to live, and when they expected all the natives to leave their various locations they expected too much. As far as he could judge from reading the Reports and conversing with those acquainted with South African affairs, it seemed to him that the demand for labour was not always the demand of an organised, self-contained community, but rather an artificial demand for labour which foreign capital employed in the mines. Therefore, they ought not to be harsh in their criticism of the natives when they refused to give that amount

1221
of labour in the mines which some people considered necessary. Very often the demand was made that the natives should work for a foreign employer, even when it injured his own work on his own land, and took him away from his own family and tribe. With reference to the question of compulsory service, the Commissioners admitted that compulsory service had been a fruitful cause of much discontent and unrest. There were many objectionable features in the system of compulsory service which had rendered it very unpopular with the natives. Naturally, they were not willing to supply that labour, because it was exacted under such unjust conditions. Even the Natal Commissioners recommended the total abolition of compulsory labour. He was not prepared to say that compulsory labour under all conceivable circumstances was unnecessary, but he did say that as practised in South Africa, and especially in Natal, it had led to much injustice and hardship, and it seemed to him that the recommendation of the Natal Commissioners of the substitution of some arrangement with the location chiefs to recruit men for public works was a far wiser method to employ. As to the land question in all the Colonies and Protectorates in South Africa, there were locations and reserves set apart for farming occupations, but in Natal the alienation of the land had been going on for some time. The result was a disintegration in the tribal system, which, as the Report said, undoubtedly contained the germs of unrest. Then followed in the Report the very striking phrase—
"The struggle for land is simply the struggle for life."
Those were the words of the Commissioners, and they were largely true of England and Scotland. If it were true of England and Scotland it was much more true of Natal, because without the land the natives were absolutely compelled to starve. It was no use saying the natives did not know the value of land, and did not make the best use of it. As a matter of fact, that was the reason which had been put forward for alienating their land. He might quote Sir Charles Saunders, as showing that that policy was extremely dangerous.
1222
In giving evidence before the Commission he said—
"To alienate that land would be about the most iniquitous proceeding he could imagine."
Upon the Resolution recently introduced into the Natal Legislature he said that this—
"Was nothing more than an attempt to grab the land for European occupation."
He was not sufficiently an expert to speak authoritatively but he thought they might quote Sir Charles Saunders as an authority without exciting anger, and surely if any man was qualified to speak on this subject it was the Commissioner for Native Affairs. The natives had been dispossessed of their land on the ground that a higher civilisation must come in and compel them to work. He had heard it argued that the Almighty intended the land to be used more profitably, and therefore it must be taken away from the natives. It was well known that whenever self-interest led any race to do an injustice to another race they generally found some good moral or religious excuse for doing it. The remedy for all this was to be found in the Bluebook, from which he would like to quote one sentence in regard to the alienation of land. On page 19 of the Natal issue of the Blue-book, Section D., there occurred the following recommendation—
"(b) The cessation of further alienation of land in Zululand, and the strict reservation of all locations and reserves for native occupation, with ample provision for the introduction of civilising and elevating agencies therein."
He did not know whether that included some form of education, but there was little enough education at the present time among the natives. He contended that the safest and the best way of ensuring that the natives would not lose their present tenure of the land and to secure that they should be safeguarded in their rights in holding it, was to give them some form of representation and some form of franchise. Was it asking too much of the other self-governing Colonies that they should imitate the example of Cape Colony? He considered that that should be the almost irreducible minimum of their demand, viz., that they should follow the example of the oldest Colony, an example which had been so highly spoken of by Lord Selborne, and give some sort of franchise

1223
to the educated or partially educated natives. It must not, however, be an illusory, but a real representation, and then it would be certain to safeguard the natives against injustice. How had they discharged their responsibilities to the natives as regarded education? They had discussed education in this House for weeks together and talked of it as if it was the most valuable thing in the world, but what had they done for the natives in South Africa in this respect? The South African Report of Native Affairs showed that in Cape Colony £50,000 per annum had been spent upon educating 60,000 scholars, and the rest of the Colonies and Dependencies put together only spent £22,000 upon educating a select number of natives, out of 3,250,000. Rhodesia, with 600,000 natives, had only 334 attending school at the public expense, and the authorities in 1905 spent the large sum of £154 in a year upon educating the natives of Rhodesia. The Commissioners, reporting on this question, declared—
"That the facts disclosed the need for more liberal grants in aid of native education."
That was the least they could do, and those who were responsible for the Government of South Africa ought to see to it that the natives had a better chance of being educated, for this would make them more fit to be associated with the whites in South Africa in the control of that great country. The Report of the seven Commissioners that there had been a lamentable series of mistakes and breaches of faith in many directions would fully justify them in passing a still more drastic Resolution than that which he was now proposing. He might add that practically all the contentions of the Commissioners, and all the points they put forward, had been admitted by the Natal Government itself, or rather by the Under-Secretary of State for Native Affairs in the Report to which he had already alluded. Whether the recommendations with regard to the future government of the natives were carried out or not, it was clear from both Reports that some form of representation must be given, for without it they could never hope to restore satisfactory relations between the handful of white men out in South Africa and the vast
1224
army of black men who peopled that country. There were in Natal 22,000 electors only, and no doubt they thought they were perfectly right in denying the right of this Parliament to intervene on behalf of the natives. He had more electors in his own constituency than there were in the whole of Natal. Being so comparatively few, he did not think that they were justified in saying that the Mother Country which had done so much for them in the past, and was willing to do so much for them in the future, could have no voice in this matter. He wished to say a word about martial law. The latest Blue-book received, showed to his mind quite clearly that the position which had been taken up by the Natal Government was absolutely wrong. It was an extremely urgent matter even at the present moment. He did not wish to say anything that would do harm or create further friction, but he should like to quote the Governor of Natal on this most important question. Writing to Lord Elgin, on 8th Feburary, 1908, the Governor said—
"On the 16th I saw Sir Charles Saunders, who had been summoned to Pietermaritzburg by Ministers to inform them of the state of affairs in Zululand. He told me that he was unaware of what special information was possessed by Sir Duncan McKenzie, but that as far as his own knowledge went there was no work to be done now in the country which the police were not competent to effectively carry out. He considered that the maintenance of martial law was unnecessary and that there was no reason against the release of the prisoners who had been kept in gaol as a result of the rebellion of 1906."
The evidence of the Blue-book was sufficient to show that martial law, native floggings, and the imprisonment of Dinizulu were questions which required serious consideration, not only by this House, but by the Government of Natal. He admitted the difficulties in connection with martial law. There could be no doubt that illegal acts were carried on under martial law—in fact it meant the abolition of all law for the time being. It was exceedingly difficult to say whether those acts were justified or not. Frederick Harrison, dealing with this question, said, in his recently published book—
"One could not trust the Archangel Michael to be just in a position so trying."

1225
That was the only excuse that could be made for some of the incidents which had taken place following on the rebellion in Zululand. On that question, he would only add that the late Colonial Secretary, Lord Elgin, supported the Governor of Natal in saying that the proclamation was premature, and he urged its withdrawal as soon as possible. Our responsibility was great and direct. He supposed that the Colonial Secretary would be asked shortly to sanction a Bill of indemnity. A Bill of indemnity for what? For illegal acts made possible by reason of martial law imposed against the wish of the British Government, and against the wish of the Governor himself. What was the origin of martial law? They all knew that it was a sporadic rebellion caused by continued and repeated breaches of faith in Zululand on the part of the Natal Government. He confessed that he thought the somewhat strong language used by the Prime Minister of Natal with reference to our interference was entirely unjustified; he practically asked us to shirk our undoubted responsibility for the natives, and he should have thought that our claim to make such modest representations as had been made by the Colonial Secretary in the past would hardly have been disputed. As to Dinizulu he would ask: How long was he to remain in prison upon the somewhat vague charge of high treason which had been preferred against him? He was perfectly willing to admit that it was fair and just to ask that the man on the spot should not be condemned with knowledge, but he and his friends asked them not to condemn rashly a man who had deserved well of us and also of the Colonial Government in the past, but to give some sort of proof that the irregular and drastic procedure adopted by Natal had been justified by the circumstances of the case. If the federation of South Africa was to become a reality, as they all hoped it would, he would like to ask the Colonial Secretary for an assurance, which he thought he would be willing to give, that the rights of the natives in South Africa should not be endangered, but that some regard would be had to the many recommendations of South African statesmen of wide experience and with greater knowledge
1226
than many hon. Members could claim to have, who had made suggestions designed to protect the native races, that the question of native representation, following on the lines of the Cape, should not go by the board, and that every attempt would be made by wise laws and humane administration to consolidate and secure the whole of South Africa for the British Empire. He begged to move.
*SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in seconding the Resolution, said his hon. friend had quoted the Paper by Lord Selborne on federation, which was laid before the House at the end of last session, and made it the foundation of the Resolution. The hon. Member had said that Lord Selborne's appeal was made on behalf of 4,000,000 natives, but there were 6,000,000 in the countries formerly comprised in the Customs Union to which Lord Selborne referred. Since his hon. friend gave notice of the Resolution a slight change had been made in its terms, and that change, he imagined, had been made with the intention of preventing them from seeming to take sides as between the self-governing Colonies in South Africa on this question. He was speaking in presence of one of high authority upon what was involved, and upon the difference between federal union and unification as it was called by General Botha. The Resolution was timely, because they knew that at this moment the controversy was one which apparently divided the self-governing Colonies themselves in South Africa. Lord Selborne's Paper raised the question of the difference between federal union and unification. Our views might be met by either of these solutions on which the self-governing Colonies seemed to differ. At this moment there was a change in some of the Colonies, notably in that of which Sir John Molteno had been the first Prime Minister, which might involve the question whether there should be a union of three of the self-governing Colonies or federation on such a plan that ultimately all South Africa might come in. They in the House had always desired a federal union of South Africa in such a form that ultimately the whole of South Africa would come in. Lord Selborne had in view even the inclusion of the Protectorates. He said

1227
that the Governor of the Cape had, on the advice of his Ministers, recommended that steps should be taken to prepare for union. Dr. Jameson had said that the Cape could not give up its native franchise, but was prepared to meet the Colonists' desire for federation in other ways. They had reason to believe that a most important advance had been made in Dutch opinion, and, therefore, they should use language of the greatest moderation in regard to matters which might cause division. In the Resolution they were asking for the least that this country could ask for. Lord Selborne had pointed out that the native question was a difficulty in the way. At that time the Transvaal Government suggested that the federation might include Portuguese Mozambique, but he thought they had now seen that the difficulties of including a foreign country in the federation were insuperable. They heard that the conference that had just met had advised that a Resolution should be passed by the Parliaments of the four self-governing Colonies. The difficulty was to cause an identical Resolution to be passed. They might confidently expect that in sonic form or another a desire for federation or unification would be expressed, but there was reason, he feared, to expect that the same view would not be taken in Natal as in the Transvaal and in the Cape. They might that night, by stating in the most moderate language the minimum of their demands, assist in the union of opinion between the three Colonies in which the Dutch element predominated, and the strength of those three Colonies was so great that Natal would be well advised to come to terms with the three Colonies upon that basis. The question as to whether the Protectorates should come in was raised in his dispatch by the High Commissioner. When railway questions were discussed, of course, that included Basutoland and the Protectorates for which the High Commissioner was responsible. But the High Commissioner was a very big, and even a dangerous person, from the point of view of the office he occupied; and if it was necessary to represent Basutoland or the Protectorates, probably it would have been better that that
1228
should have been done by someone not in the position of the High Commissioner, because there was a danger of rousing susceptibilities by calling in the High Commissioner. From the life of Sir John Molteno they knew the circumstances under which the negotiations during the time of Sir George Grey broke down; and they must do everything, and they were doing everything, to avoid the appearance of what Sir John Molteno declared to be the "ill-informed interference" which had then been resented. It had, however, never been denied that there were certain circumstances with regard to South Africa which absolutely required a certain amount of interference by the Imperial Parliament. When the South Africa Bill of 1877, introduced by a Conservative Government, was being considered they tried to put forward the same views they were putting forward that night as to the essential responsibility of this country on certain points. When the South Africa Bill came down from the House of Lords to the House of Commons it contained no native clause. On the Second Reading of the Bill, the present Lord Courtney and he opposed it on that ground, and on going into Committee the right hon. Member for West Birmingham and himself opposed it specifically on the ground that they must have provisions for the settlement of native relations. It was pointed out then, as it was pointed out now, that they could have no chance of peace or safety in South Africa unless this question was faced in advance. The Conservative Government, when proposing the Bill in the House of Lords, stated that—
"Union or confederation was an urgent and pressing necessity."
And, the Act was entitled an—
"Act for the union under one Government of such of the South African Colonies and States as may agree."
The House remembered the circumstances under which that agreement failed to be brought about. There was no native clause, and in the course of the discussions, although those who voted against the Bill were few in number, the strength of their arguments was so great that the very clause that they demanded was inserted in the Bill. That clause, Section 19, stated

1229
that provision should be made in "the electorate and in the distribution of seats" for—
"The due representation of the natives in the Union Parliament and Provincial Councils."
That Bill was passed, and a part of it was now spent. Some of the clauses were temporary but one at least remained in force and could be acted upon at the present time. The consent of this Parliament in behalf of the Empire was necessary to South African federation; and it was better that they should state in advance what were the minimum terms to be suggested. These were already suggested by two of the leading Colonies in South Africa, and it was hoped that they would obtain the concurrence of the other two smaller Colonies. Our special responsibilities required more than mere consent as to Swaziland, Bechuanaland, Basutoland, and Zululand. Even though they were not asked to bring in the outer fringes of South Africa at the present time, e g., Rhodesia, still they did stand directly for the representation of Imperial duties in this House, because they had no one else to voice those views. As to martial law, which had been referred to by his hon. friend, he, and those who agreed with him, desired to speak with a full sense of responsibility, and he would say nothing to increase the feeling, the very strong feeling on their side, and the equally strong feeling amongst certain Colonists, on that delicate subject. He hoped that they might be reported in South Africa not so incorrectly as they were sometimes reported there, if they expressed clearly the view that they were not attacking one Colony in particular. Their objections to martial law were universal. Such was the objection which they took on the occasion in 1879 to which his hon. friend referred in quoting Mr. F. Harrison, and the statements then made, painful as they were, turned out to be true, and their wisdom was subsequently acknowledged by the very officer who had been attacked. There was sometimes a division in this House, not on this occasion, when they were all trying to help in a great common, national and Imperial object; but sometimes at Question-time there was excited party feeling when whatever was said was an offence to some hon. Members who
1230
shouted about interference with the South African self-governing Colonies. They all deprecated interference with self-governing Colonies, and so far as they could be said to be interfering, they were that night only interfering to prevent interference. Their object was to avoid future interference by stating in advance the minimum that they were bound to insist upon in the interests of the Empire, and not of this country alone. He hoped the hon. Member for Gravesend would not misunderstand him when he said that some regretted at Question-time that day what they thought interference on behalf of a "retrenched officer." There were questions of internal affairs in the self-governing Colonies which did not involve the interests of the Empire; but there were matters in which they did not differ, and in which they should all agree that this country had such an interest, and such a binding obligation to preserve national good faith, that it would be impossible not to express the opinion which this Parliament held. Sir John Molteno put the case against interference as strongly as it was ever put, but there were occasions when national good faith demanded that they should interfere to protect the interests of the natives and of other subjects of the Empire. There were occasions also which had arisen in South Africa, and which were arising possibly at this moment, where one Colony might come into conflict with another, and there again they might be called upon to interfere. There was the famous conflict between the Cape and Natal, which was in the minds of all those who had any knowledge of the history of South Africa. Then there were such questions as the rights of British Indian subjects in South Africa. We were the sole custodians of the interests of the people of India in South Africa, and we must state the argument in their favour, even if we did not push it to an extreme. The franchise, so far as the native population was concerned, was the key to the position. No man in this House would defend the grotesque absurdities caused by the difference of status between natives in the various Colonies and coloured men. Nine out of ten of the difficulties between the Colonies arose out of these grotesque absurdities.

1231
The Cape was free from these because of the virtual representation which the natives did receive through their most educated men. There was the case of a man who was chairman of the Health Committee of Cape Town Municipal Council, who was a member of a family which had for four generations been British subjects, and was eloquent in both English and Dutch, and was one of the greatest physicians in South Africa, but who was obliged to have a special passport when he visited another Colony. That was an instance of the grotesque absurdities which prevailed in regard to coloured statistics. Of course, these would be removed if either unification of the three Colonies or federation of the four as a whole should be brought about, and he was certain that those who had seen the stand which the coloured men had made in the last few years had been struck by it, and that their claims would in time receive attention. We were bound to have a close inquiry into the condition of the native population, especially if the Cape was not satisfied, because the Cape had really mastered this question, and did not make mistakes about it. It never sinned in ignorance. We were bound to consider the native question in South Africa as a labour question, because it was admitted that the labour of South Africa would always be predominantly native, but we had to consider especially cases where our own good faith was directly concerned. He thought we ought to draw a distinction between matters in which we stood for certain others, such as the native Indians and India, or the case of a Protectorate in which we were the government, and that of a self-governing Colony. There were instances where we must do more than be represented because we were distinctly committed, and it was a matter of our good faith. A franchise like the Cape franchise—a franchise not illusory, not bound by such conditions as the franchise in Natal, would cover then, larger questions, and would even cover matters in which we were bound by good as faith. The King was put forward 'paramount chief" in all the Colonies, but it meant a different thing in different Colonies and Protectorates. In Basutoland all the officers were direct repre-
1232
sentatives of the King, but in other parts of South Africa the position of paramount chief was somewhat doubtful. In the case of Swaziland promises had been made and not always kept in the personal name of the paramount chief, and the Swazis had been assured that: "He will continue to protect you." In the case of Natal, the King was paramount chief by actual treaty, and in the case of Zululand it was equivalent to treaty. It was what was called a treaty position, and hon. Members would find it set out as a treaty in "The Map of Africa by Treaty." He had asked some troublesome questions, he was afraid, of the predecessor of the hon. and gallant Member, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, and they were sent out and some answers were given the day before which he for one cheered because they asserted the inviolability of the position which the hon. and gallant Gentleman occupied as contrasted with the humbler official who filled the corresponding office in Natal. The hon. and gallant Gentleman answered him in brief terms, and said—
"The Under-Secretary's view is not correct."
He doubted whether the Natal Under-Secretary's view could be more unhesitatingly assailed. But he said that there was the greatest legal doubt in Zululand as to the position of the King as paramount chief, upon which the whole question turned. There was difference of opinion between our advisers and the advisers of the Natal Government on that point. It had been admitted by the unanimous Commission appointed by the Government of Natal, and by its own officials that, "continuous breaches of faith with the Zulus in regard to their land" had occurred, and if this House paid heed to the extent to which this country was responsible for the cession of Zululand, he thought it would be admitted that, if not legally, we were morally bound to see to the future of Zululand. The Natal Government admitted that Zululand could not go on as it was and some of the members of the Commission proposed the widest and most startling change in its government. A separate Government was proposed, and that Zululand should be set up as a detached

1233
Government. The condition of the country to his mind morally bound us to some inquiry as to the state of things prevailing there, and when they remembered that these breaches of faith were not breaches of Colonial faith, but of the faith of the Mother Country, he thought they would see that we were bound to such an investigation. In the Annexation Act of 1897 it was stated that no alienation of land was to take place in Zululand and the unanimous Report of the Natal Commissioners pointed to the fact that there had been alienation. They unanimously advised that "no further alienation of land in Zululand" should take place. That was an admission, he took it, that this alienation which our faith had been pledged to resist, had taken place. He would not deal with other more difficult and dangerous topics, and no one man could cover the whole field, but no one of them could be satisfied with their personal and Imperial share in the relations between the white population of South Africa and any one of the various great chiefs there, whose fate had hung in the balance during the last few years. They must have the sadness of the doubts they entertained in regard to the fate of many of them. They must, however, look forward that night with hope, chiefly in the future, as to these so-called rebellions; they would have to take a grave decision, as to which their hopes for the future must guide their conduct for the present, as to the events that had occurred under martial law, which was no law at all, but simply the will of some little autocrat. The hon. Member for Dumfriesshire wrote in 1896 that—
"Until this union is formed it is not easy for England to withdraw,"
and allow the Colony to manage 'all it internal" affairs. This was called interference, but there were questions in which we were called upon to interfere, and in which we could not help ourselves, although we desired to interfere as little as possible in the future if it could be avoided. He detested that tendency which was displayed in the Blue-books to pull backwards and forwards about the horrible facts as to hangings and floggings under martial law among our politicians, and it was not confined to this
1234
country, but was perhaps quite as rife in the Colony as it was here. He hoped he had made it clear that they had no pleasure in interference; they did not interfere out of spite or on account of petty hatreds or jealousies; they wished to interfere as little as possible, and only so far as was consistent with their position as honest men representative of Imperial good faith and interests. The Cape had not met the very extreme views which he entertained, and many others had entertained; but the Cape had met the practical difficulties of the situation, and when they found a man, with whom they had had differences of opinion and should have again—Sir Godfrey Lagden—using language such as he did with regard to the Cape, they rejoiced. He said that the Cape had produced native men who would be a credit to any country. It was recorded that natives left Natal in order to seek a better education at the Cape because they could not get it in Natal. There was, moreover, a consideration too often ignored. We had made enormous sacrifices on our side of our opinions to try to meet South African opinion. In passing a Bill, excluding, on the ground of colour alone, the working majority from all franchise, we went further than some of them thought we ought to have gone, but the House did it to try and meet the South African views in the hope and belief that they would come towards us and try to meet our views. The Cape had in some measure met our views, and he believed the great leaders of the Dutch predominant party in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony were inclined in the same direction, and recognised the enormous distance we had gone to try and meet their views. We despairingly admitted that we could not shake that principle—the exact opposite of the principle proclaimed in the constitution of the United States—in the Transvaal Constitution—
"We will suffer no equality in either Church or State between white and black."
We could not hope to shake that principle, but we could hope to obtain, by equal moderation on both sides and by statesmanship in the Colonies to meet statesmanship in this country, that which would help to give us in practice the franchise of the

1235
Cape. The demands they put forward were sometimes supposed, coming from extreme Radicals, to be inconsistent with the Imperial idea, but he believed that they could not hope to maintain the Empire, the very life of which was a daily miracle if they looked at the theoretical facts of the case, except by that kind of give and take. They had given up principles, many of them hoped never to live to have to give up, to try to meet Colonial opinion on those points, and they felt that at last they were on the point of success, and that at this moment there was a distinct attempt on the part of the Colonies to come sufficiently towards us to justify real hope now of solving this question of federation. He seconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House, recognising signs of a growing opinion on the part of the self-governing Colonies of South Africa in favour of safeguarding the rights and future of the Natives in any scheme of political unification or federation, expresses its confidence that His Majesty's Government will welcome the adoption of provisions calculated to render possible the ultimate inclusion of the whole of British South Africa in federal union."—(Mr. Alden.)
SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that no one on that side of the House could possibly take exception to the Resolution which had been so ably moved and seconded. Much less would anyone object who knew the Colonies and the value of the suggestions made in the Resolution. He perhaps would suggest to his right hon. friend who had just sat down that the word "interfere" was a strong word, and that they might use the words "responsible suggestion" based on an undoubted right, but he did not think that a Resolution of this kind accepted by the House of Commons was an interference. We had, and always had had, in South Africa, particularly in Zululand, and we preserved the right in the Orange River and Crown Colonies, to safeguard as far as possible the interests of the native races. His right hon. friend the Member for
1236
West Birmingham, when the settlement of the late war was made, said—
"We cannot consent to purchase peace by leaving the coloured population in the position in which they stood before the war, with not even the ordinary civil rights which the Government of the Cape Colony has long conceded to them."
That was a very important statement, which he thought no succeeding Colonial Secretary could possibly neglect to appreciate or to put in practice in principle. Those of them who watched with great anxiety the development of affairs in South Africa, the development of government as represented by responsible Government, welcomed the idea of federation or unification, because, as the mover of the Resolution had said, it would solve the question of the position of the native races, and this country's undoubted right was to make a suggestion, a strong, friendly, and firm suggestion, that in the achievement of federation we would not rest during the period of negotiations while our influence could possibly be brought to bear to secure a just and fair settlement of this question. He much preferred to stand on the ground of our constitutional right than upon one suggestion made by the mover of the Resolution. His speech was made in admirable temper. He was a good democrat and represented Radical principles, and would not take exception to what he was going to say. The hon. Member suggested that because Natal had only 22,000 voters her responsibility was less to be supported, if he might put it so, than if she had, say, ten times that number of voters. Once they granted responsible government to a Colony, whether it had 10,000 or 500,000 voters, that responsibility was theirs, and there could be no invasion of that democratic principle by public opinion in this Home or in any other Assembly.
MR. ALDEN: I only meant that the franchise was not sufficiently democratic.
SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he was glad to have that explanation, but the hon. Member would not object to his having drawn attention to that particular statement, because the House knew well that if Natal made a mistake in native

1237
policy, which produced internal troubles ending in rebellion it was the 22,000 voters who would have to bear the expense of that trouble. Therefore, the House should feel, and he believed they did feel, great sympathy with a young and struggling Colony like Natal. Let the House only stop to think of what was the position of a Colony like Natal. Little scattered groups of people in a great country, isolated from their fellows, with no military protection of any kind, surrounded by a dark race who had scarcely emerged from barbarism, upon whom the influence of the missionaries, which was for good, could do nothing more than perhaps soften the barbarity.
AN HON. MEMBERwas understood to interrupt with reference to the churches.
SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he thought the interjection was most unworthy. He was trying to keep the debate upon a basis free from recrimination of any kind, and he hoped he would be permitted to make what he believed would be a moderate speech upon a grave question. The position of the settlers in Natal was one which must evoke the sympathy of every right-thinking person, and if they had made mistakes by alienation of land, and by putting down the power and authority of chiefs, and at the same time have not educated them sufficiently that they could exercise and use the opportunity which had been given to them, that was a thing which could be remedied, and they in that House were concerned to express the opinion and the feeling that Natal would do well to weigh the Report of the Native Affairs Commission, and to read and inwardly digest the Minute by Mr. Samuelson, the Under-Secretary for Native Affairs, and to bring in such a Bill as would remedy what they knew to be undoubted grievances. What he was pleading for was that something like a first estimate should be made of the difficulties and dangers under which a Government like that of Natal laboured, in building up an administration and a Government under conditions of unparalleled difficulty. There was not a Colony anywhere that had the difficulties that
1238
Natal had. Rhodesia might have them by and by, but let them take Canada, with her handful of native population, the preponderating influence always that of the white population. Canada had pursued a wise policy of education and of industrial education. Australia had a handful of aborigines, and she had been able to deal with them without difficulty. New Zealand had a very small proportion of black men, Maoris, to the general population; 300,000, he thought, was the general white population of New Zealand, and there were between 30,000 and 40,000 Maoris. The question was a comparatively easy one. But it was different in a Colony like Natal, where there were eleven coloured people, including Asiatics and Indians and "others" as they were called, to one white man. That must be taken into consideration, and in giving their assent to the Resolution, as he hoped the House would unanimously, they should keep in mind the broad general views and general principles. If confederation came, there must, of course, be the franchise. It was impossible that there could be federation without the franchise. He was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean that General Botha was in favour of the franchise. That was an immense step.
*SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I did not go so far as to say that. I said there was every reason to suppose that the extreme view of opposition to the franchise was falling off.
SIR GILBERT PARKERtrusted that the right hon. baronet's hope would be fully realised. If it was the case that the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony would accept the Cape franchise for the natives, there seemed to be no obstruction to federation, because already they had the Courts, the Customs, and the railways federating. The one bar to federation and the thing which had made every person interested in South Africa extraordinarily, anxious, had been this native question. He had not the slightest doubt that Natal, having learned many lessons by her late troubles, and having these exhaustive and suggestive Reports

1239
before her, would be prepared to extend her franchise. He was convinced she ought to do so. He was not at all sure that when that franchise came it would not come in two forms. Mr. Cecil Rhodes once made a very remarkable statement advocating equal rights for every civilised man south of the Zambesi. He said "civilised man." No one would suggest that they should give the franchise to the uncivilised natives of Zululand; but he believed it would be a good thing to give the Zulus in Zululand, under present conditions, representation in responsible Government at Pietermaritzburg. If, at the same time, they gave the franchise to the civilised black man, the civilised native who had raised himself to an educational and industrial position equal to that of the white man, then they would have a double representation. The interests of the uncivilised, the untrained, the undeveloped Zululand native would be protected on the one hand, and on the other hand the man, no matter what his colour, who had raised himself to the rights of citizenship would also be represented in the Colony. He felt himself that that would be the only solution. The United States natives were given their franchise too soon, before the masses had been lifted, to a position where they could properly assume the rights of citizenship. South Africa could not always be a place where black men did only unskilled labour, and, if ever it was to have a Government which would represent the black races as well as the white, and if the state of civilisation of black races was ever to be such as would entitle them to the place of citizenship, it could only be, whatever the federation might be, upon the basis of industrialism. The only good thing there was about slavery was that it did not teach the native races skilled trades. Industrialism was the order of the day in the United States plantations. In the days of slavery every plantation was the centre of industry. It was folly to talk of teaching the native man and woman to read and write and expect that that was going to solve the problem in South Africa. If it would, then our civilisation, based upon skilled labour, slowly developed, would after all be a trifle.
1240
We had in 1,000 years produced a highly-trained, highly-skilled civilisation, and not in twenty nor fifty years would the native races in South Africa attain to the position even that our humblest classes had attained by virtue of heredity; because the hereditary strain, and the tendency of ages, and the instinct for labour and for government, would not be there. Everybody who had studied the case admitted that the tribal system, so far as the civil law was concerned, had been extremely good. Wherever they had a wise chief and a strong man with his series of precedents he controlled his tribe effectively. It was when they came to the criminal law that they were presented with very grave difficulties. It seemed to him that in any solution of the problem the tribal system must be maintained up to a certain point, that the native chiefs must not further have their power taken from them, and that their position must not be made less powerful by what would be ineffective attempts to give to the natives before their time the advantages and the privileges of a liberal citizenship. What he had said had been conceived in a spirit of sympathy with the Resolution, which he believed the House would do well to pass. He could only hope that their act would strengthen the hands of those in South Africa who were keen for federation, and that they would realise that this was an Imperial question and that our power in the end was paramount. While our power was paramount and while the Colonies remained in constitutional connection with this country, he hoped they would so far realise their own responsibilities that neither intervention nor interference would be necessary. Before closing, he wished to refer to one thing mentioned by his tight hon. friend who had alluded to a question which he (Sir Gilbert Parker) asked concerning Dr. Sansome. He put the question upon the basis of our responsibility for the native races. He was anxious to know if the Government was satisfied that those conditions which Dr. Sansome had established under great difficulty and with splendid effect were to be maintained. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of

1241
Trade found no fault with the repeated appeals concerning our responsibility for the retrenchment of British Civil servants in the Transvaal. Before the Constitution was granted they urged and urged that some provision should be made for retrenched Civil servants. That was his only reason for putting the question. The President of the Board of Trade accepted the responsibility for safeguarding the interests of retrenched Civil servants and promised that wherever possible they should be given positions under this Government, either in the Colonial service or in some other department of the State. He trusted that there would be no dissentient voice, and that the Resolution would be carried. Even upon the question of martial law—a very difficult and delicate question on which he would not venture—the House might be united. For his own part, he thought that Natal, if she had to take action again, might not perhaps pursue the same course. In any case, this Government's authority, even on that question, constitutionally and legally, must be admitted and he, for one, was glad of the opportunity of joining in the debate.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,: To-night's debate is, I think, a happy augury for the future of South Africa. I think everyone who has listened to this debate will agree that, if every one of our self-governing Colonies had been represented here to-night, it would all have been to the good. The Motion is one of very great importance, but I hope my right hon. friend, whose eloquent speech on a subject he has made his own I would specially acknowledge, will forgive me if I do not make any definite announcement on the second part of the Resolution in reference to federation. The Government in this matter, warned by precedent, are determined not to attempt to lead in this matter, but to leave it to the South African Colonies themselves to work out the problem.
MR. LYTTELTON: What does the hon.
1242
Gentleman wish to be left out of the Resolution?
COLONEL SEELY: I am saying that the Government do not wish to make any statement about federation. They prefer to let the initiative come from the Colonies themselves. With regard to the first part of the Resolution—the most important part—on the subject of the native races, we welcome the words of the Resolution. It recognises the growing desire of our self-governing Colonies in South Africa to ameliorate the native lot. I am far from saying that the desire has been absent in the past. I can show in a moment that there always has been that desire. There are growing signs that all South African opinion is determined to give some representation to the native, whether by direct franchise or by some other method. I think it would be well if I were to take the different Colonies one by one, and sketch very briefly what is the situation, and what we may hope it to be. I will say first that the Government—and I am sure every Member of the House realises to the full the special responsibilitity which we have to the natives, and that in dealing with the self-governing Colonies and the natives residing in them we can act best in cordial co-operation with the Colonies, and we rejoice to know that we have reason to expect that cordial co-operation. Let us come first to Natal. I have been asked one or two definite questions, and I will endeavour to reply to them. On the general question of Natal, it is the most difficult because the whites there are in such a small minority. They form about one-tenth of the whole population, and no one who has seen, as I have seen, that Natal landscape, with one farm occupied by a white man surrounded by miles of country on which are dotted about the little holdings and huts of Kaffirs, who, though they are, and I hope will always remain, loyal and contented, are yet sometimes thought to be a source of danger—no one who views that spectacle can fail to understand that it is difficult for the people of Natal to take a very impartial view of this question which I am sure they would do if they were removed from the scene. Since my hon. friends in this House know that I myself

1243
hold strong views on this matter, which I know the Government share, I may be permitted to make this remark as to the special difficulties in Natal, and no one can speak on the subject without referring to them. Natal, I am glad to say, has always been in favour, except in times of storm and distress of giving the negroes representation. I was surprised to find how emphatic was her opinion in 1897 when the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean moved in the matter. Largely in consequence of a deputation which he accompanied, and on which I think he spoke, suggestions were made to the Government that special representation should be given to the natives, and the Council of Natal, nearly all Natal men, made a statement which shows plainly that Natal—and some people who wrote that despatch are still there—is strongly in favour of native representation. I have been asked by the hon. Member who moved the Motion in a speech of great moderation, to make some announcement to-night about martial law in Natal, or rather in Zululand. I fear I cannot make any announcement as to the termination of martial law, because martial law cannot end in Natal until the Legislature has met and an Act of Indemnity is passed. This follows the precedent which we ourselves followed after the South African War. It is, no doubt, necessary to pass an Act of indemnity before you put an end to martial law. It is necessary because if you abolish it without passing an Act of Indemnity, every act done during this martial law, or, as it should be put, in the absence of law, involves an action at law, and I think that would be manifestly unfair to the humble instruments of the Government who act, as they are bound to do, by the order of their superiors. In the absence of an Act of Indemnity they would be liable to severe pains and penalties under the ordinary law, and for that reason, by universal practice—and I say nothing as to the merits of martial law—you retain martial law until you pass an Act of Indemnity, not to protect the rich and powerful but the weak and humble instruments who carry out your policy.
MR. BYLESasked whether it was proposed to draw a wet sponge over all their wrong-doing?
COLONEL SEELY: I cannot accept a statement of that kind, because it is, of course, opening up a large question, which I have not time to deal with, as to the merits of martial law in general. But as to the retention of martial law until an Act of Indemnity is passed, I hope I have made it plain that it is necessary in order to protect the instruments of the Government.
MR. MACKARNESS: May I ask whether it has not been the practice also to summon Parliament to pass an Act of Indemnity as soon as the necessity for martial law has passed away?
COLONEL SEELY: Certainly. Now we are on common ground. The Parliament of Natal will meet in the course of the next two or three weeks, when an Act of Indemnity will be presented, and we can trust that then martial law will come to an end, and we may hope it will not again be required. There is only one thing more to be said about martial law, the existence of which every man deplores, and that is that, as far as we know, although it exists nominally for the reasons I have stated, in the words of the Prime Minister, Mr. Moor, it is practically not in existence. Of course, my hon. friend may say that the Prime Minister of Natal, of whom we speak with every respect, would naturally take a favourable view because he was responsible for the policy in its inception. But we have a stronger witness in this matter, and this witness is the Governor himself who, as my hon. friend will remember, protested at the start against the enactment of martial law. He says that during his tour in Zululand he saw practically no traces of martial law, and the natives did not complain on that subject although they complained of many others, notably the loss of cattle. So that we may say, in this matter of the natives, that martial law is practically not in existence, on the assurance of the Governor, whose objection is very well

1245
known, and who may be accepted as an impartial witness in this, as I am sure he is on all other matters. But there is one drawback, that in the matter of Dinizulu, during the continuance of martial law, the Government of Natal are of opinion that it would be unwise to allow evidence to be collected there. On that I can only say it is regrettable that that should be the case, but that the Government of Natal appear to be anxious to meet the difficulty, and have, so we understand, arranged for any witnesses which may be required to be brought from Zululand into Natal for the purpose of the defence of Dinizulu. I admit that that is not a complete solution of this difficulty, but at least it shows a desire to do something to mitigate the difficulty which has been created. I cannot add more on the subject of Natal except to reply to the specific questions of my hon. friend with regard to Dinizulu. He asked what is being done about Dinizulu, and how much longer is he to remain without a definite charge being formulated against him. In this matter, as I endeavoured to explain at Questions, and as I think the President of the Board of Trade explained when he was at the place which I now have the honour to occupy, the situation here is remarkable. It is certainly not the fault of the Government of Natal. They have got this remarkable law, the ordinance of 1845. Under that law, copies of which I have sent to one or two of my hon. friends behind me, it is necessary for the magistrates to hold a preliminary inquiry to ascertain what definite charge shall be formulated. The House will see that this may be an excellent law for ordinary cases. I do not say that it is, but it may be. But for cases like that of a great native chief, which involve matters of the utmost consequence, numberless witnesses and far-reaching issues of the utmost importance, it is plainly a most undesirable law, for it practically amounts to a man having two protracted trials, the first one on no definite charge. But this is no fault of the Government of Natal. They are bound to proceed under this law. They did not even pass the law. We gave it to them, and handed it over to them with all the other laws when Natal became a self-governing
1246
Colony. So that in the matter of delay the fault lies with the law, and the fault of the law, if it be a bad one, does not lie with the Government of Natal. But the fact remains, and it is deplorable that this great native chief should remain so long without a definite charge being formulated against him. I have told the House that the Secretary of State is in constant communication with the Government of Natal with a view to seeing whether something cannot be done to accelerate the matter. At least this much is done, that he is assured of being defended by the most able counsel in South Africa, and I have reason to hope that no delay will take place which is not rendered necessary by the exigencies of the case itself as complicated by the law of 1845. I trust I have answered the questions put to me, and if I have not it is because my time is of necessity short. With regard to the other self-governing Colonies in South Africa where there is a large number of natives, it is true that in the Orange River Colony and in the Transvaal the natives have no votes and no representation at all. There is perhaps some reason for the earnest hope expressed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, if the movement towards either federal union or unification should result in friction, in the fact that these Colonies have plainly indicated that they are willing to join in some form of native representation. I think all persons in South Africa agree that every one ought to be represented by someone in some democratic sense. In the case of Cape Colony the natives have representation. In the case of Rhodesia they are represented, though very few of them have the franchise. In the case of Natal they nominally have the power of representation. In the case of the Protectorates and of Basutoland they are represented in that House. I am sure that both the Orange River Colony and the Transvaal will be willing to adopt some method for giving representation to the natives. Cape Colony has adopted the franchise, and, as my right hon. friend has said, the franchise is the key to the situation. There are many things pressing for solution—native land, native education, native rights of every kind. But given the

1247
franchise, these things will solve themselves, and without it we shall labour in vain. Certainly it has worked well in the Cape. In the matter of land the legislation has been wise and in many respects generous. In the matter of education, the college for the education of the natives has received the enthusiastic support, not only of the natives, but also of Colonel Crewe, Mr. Sauer, and many other distinguished men in the Colony. In order to show how highly regarded by the Government of the day the natives are in Cape Colony, I may mention that a Commission composed entirely of natives, in charge of a magistrate, has been sent, with the approval of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, to the Rand mines to ascertain what amendments could be made in the regulations to meet the wishes of the natives. Such a thing has never been done before in South Africa. They were sent to investigate themselves conditions which affected themselves, and, every one would agree, with the happiest results.
*MR. REESasked whether the hon. Gentleman ignored the adverse opinion which existed in Cape Colony in respect of the present franchise. He spoke as if it had universal acceptance.
COLONEL SEELY: Nothing in this world has universal acceptance., and you generally find somebody in this House who objects to everything.
*MR. REESasked whether the hon. Gentleman asserted that there was not widespread objection to the existing franchise in Cape Colony.
COLONEL SEELY: There is objection everywhere to every policy. Both great parties in Cape Colony approve of the native franchise. Dr. Jameson emphatically approves of it. Mr. Merriman says we must guard the existing franchise in regard to the natives; and we must never throw that away. The great Imperialist Mr. Rhodes claimed equal rights for all civilised men. Therefore we may at least claim that there is a large measure of agreement as to the
1248
desirability of the native franchise as it exists in Cape Colony. I believe the overwhelming majority of the people in Cape Colony are in favour of the existing franchise. But I do not think it would be wise for His Majesty's Government to take the view that the Cape franchise is the only possible solution of the problem. Different States have very different problems to face; and if we attempt to lay down the principle that this kind of franchise is the only plan, we may get an illusory franchise such as now exists in one of the Colonies. Mr. Merriman, whose name will always be received with respect, and who sympathises with the advanced view on this subject, specially guarded himself against forcing this franchise upon other States. Although it is true that the franchise has worked well in Cape Colony, we are not committed to that solution. What His Majesty's Government are committed to is that in any solution of the South African question some special representation must be found for the natives in order to safeguard their rights, and with that, I am glad to think, all people in Smith Africa are now practically agreed. As to our responsibilities to the Protectorates and Zululand, it has been pointed out very truly that no sensible man would object to our interference in native questions in South Africa as such, because we absolutely rule from this House over half a million natives in South Africa, and the ultimate resort of those natives is to the Government of this country. There they have not got the franchise, but in most of the Protectorates, and in Basutoland especially, they have native councils. In Basutoland it has been a great success. In case anyone should think that the Basutos are not able to take a sufficiently intelligent part in debate, I may mention that the subjects discussed with great eloquence at the last council meeting were an Education Bill, a Licensing Bill, and an Aliens Bill. Arguments were advanced on the Aliens Bill such as we are familiar with on both sides of this House, on the education question one chief got up and made an eloquent speech in favour of the secular solution, and I regret to inform my hon. friends below the gangway that he was ultimately howled down by the representatives of the different religious bodies.

1249
Anyone who reads the debate will see that it shows a very high level of civilisation attained by those people; and although they have not got the vote, they are already sufficiently represented in their council and sufficiently protected by this House to make Basutoland a happy country and a model which may well be followed. I trust that after the right hon. Gentleman opposite has spoken we may hear a word or two from my right hon. friend the Member for Dundee who had a great share in piloting through this House that measure of self-government without which federation would have been impossible. I said that the Government were anxious not to say much on this subject because when we had tried to lead before we failed. Lord Carnarvon in 1875 formulated proposals for federation, but the end was utter failure; and in 1877 an Act was passed to make South Africa one, but we have taken the lead, and these young nations, who are rightly proud of their institutions and of their enterprise do not wish to be led in matters of this kind. These young nations fully realise our special responsibilities to the natives, and, except in times of storm and stress, there is no reason for acrimony or bitterness on the subject. There is complete agreement in all parts of the House, and I think the debate to-night will show that where we can agree in this House the whole Empire can agree upon a form of policy. We cannot now propound a policy, but provision for the due representation of native races is still regarded as essential; and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman opposite will agree that that is still the settled policy of this country, and will, we have reason to believe, be the settled policy of every South African State. The tentative steps towards federal union have not, as we see in the daily Press, yet met with success. But, although the situation is difficult, it is not dark, for it is illumined by a great light. Two white races who fought us
1250
so hard have now made an enduring peace. Till that was done there could be no union. But a treaty of peace has been made and will abide, I am convinced; and when the two races have combined I have no doubt that they will unite in their efforts to raise the standard of the natives and to ameliorate their lot, realising that it is their country as much as ours, for they were there first, realising that it is our mission to raise their status, that it is the mission of the whole Empire to raise the status of all under its sway, and in that magnificent work I am firmly convinced that we shall have the co-operation of our self-governing Colonies.
MR. LYTTELTON: The hon. Gentleman has intimated that his colleague the President of the Board of Trade desires to say a few words this evening. I shall endeavour to confine within the strictest possible limits the observations I have to make. I agree that the policy of this country favours the representation of the natives, and, of course, holding that view, I shall not in any way question or oppose the passage of the Resolution which has been moved and seconded from the other side in speeches characterised by laudable moderation and taste. But I must not be understood as myself adopting all the terms of that Resolution, for I confess it is of a more patronising character than I should my self desire to draw. Passing away from that mere matter of form to the substance of the speeches made by the mover and seconder, I should not desire for a moment to say anything ungracious with regard to the Resolution. What I do feel, and somewhat strongly, is that debates on this question are inopportune when, for better or for worse, self-government has been given to the Transvaal. Of course, hon. Members on the other side know our views upon that. I think it is desirable, as far as possible, to leave the South African Colonies to themselves. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman opposite has

1251
said about the rights of this country and about the title of His Majesty the King as paramount chief of the many natives under his sway. No one would stand here and say that we have not a responsibility towards the natives which it may or may not on occasion be absolutely necessary to assert; but I do not think we should be continually saying so in this House. It is a fact which, I believe, is absolutely recognised by the Colonies themselves, and to which they would not for a moment take exception. Therefore, when I speak of the inopportuneness of this Resolution, I would ask whether there is any need of it at the present time in South Africa. Is there any need of assertions of this kind, and of debates in this House on the subject, or is there no immediate need of such debates and such Resolutions? With regard to the natives generally, let me mention what have been the recent events of great importance to the South African Colonies themselves. Quite recently, Sir Godfrey Lagden's Commission has produced a most valuable Report, the result of great knowledge and experience of the question with which they were dealing, and full of wisdom and humanity. I do not believe that any Commission that could have sat in this country could have dealt with the subject with equal knowledge and sagacity. Comment has been made on the attitude of Natal towards the natives. I am sure that I do not desire to say anything hostile to that Colony, especially having regard to the peculiar difficulties and dangers in which she stands. Of course, acts have taken place there about which on a proper occasion I will express my opinion. Assuming for the purposes of argument that things we deplore have been done, does the House think that the discussion of those questions in Parliament at the present moment is more likely or less likely to bring about redress to the natives than, at any rate for a time, leaving opinion to work out for the best in Natal
1252
itself? I say that, because after Sir Godfrey Lagden's Commission there has been a Commission in Natal itself. Most important recommendations have been put forward and most serious criticisms have been made upon the Government action by that very Commission. I think hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they think over this matter in a quiet and cool spirit, will feel that it is more likely that opinion will be won over in Natal to a feeling altogether friendly and liberal towards the natives by efforts in the Colony itself than by outside criticism. I do not for a moment dispute that it is possible that the time may come when action may be necessary on the part of this House—I do not in the least wish to anticipate such a necessity or to express the belief that it will take place—but I do say that, whether the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite are more or less sanguine than mine on this question, such interference should not take place till the last possible moment, having regard to the fact that already in Natal there exist strenuous advocates of the cause of the natives in that Colony. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean referred to the warm tribute paid by Sir Godfrey Lagden to the native policy in the Cape. Therefore, you have a large body of opinion in Natal, and by far the largest body of opinion in the Cape, in favour of the cause of the natives, and if we may accept the right hon. Gentleman's authority, given I quite admit with some reserve, there is a growing tendency in the Transvaal to favour the liberal treatment of the natives. I have no knowledge of it, I merely get that information from the right hon. Gentleman himself. Under those circumstances to which I have briefly adverted, opinion in South Africa generally—there are exceptions I know—is strong, or at any rate it is becoming daily sounder and stronger, upon this matter. I confess that while I do not for a moment question the right of the right hon. Baronet the Member

1253
for the Forest of Dean, who for thirty years or more has championed the rights of the natives of South Africa and elsewhere, and while I do not deprecate or say a single word against the right of those hon. Gentlemen who sit with him to bring forward the cause of the natives at moments which seem to some of us entirely inopportune, yet I think if His Majesty's Government were to intervene, or to intervene strongly in this respect, they would subject themselves to, I think, almost unanswerable rebuff. Let me say why I think that. As to the Letters Patent which granted self-government to the Transvaal and the Orange Colony, his Majesty's Government took the opportunity of stating on every occasion on which they mounted a platform that no franchise whatever was given to the natives, that they were giving a boon which was unexpected and which was not promised so soon. When they were granting self-government they had every possible right and opportunity to make what terms they thought fit on behalf of the natives whom the right hon. Gentleman now champions. There may be a point of view from which their action in giving no franchise to the natives could be defended, but their action was more emphatic against the natives, in my judgment, than the mere omission to grant them the franchise would indicate. They gave manhood suffrage to the Transvaal. [An HON. MEMBER: White.] Yes, white; and, in doing so, of course they put the coloured argument in its most invidious and emphatic form. For the first time, owing to the action of His Majesty's Government in the great Charter under the Letters Patent, which has been boasted of on every platform, not merely are the natives not given the franchise, for which much might be said, but there is withdrawn for ever the possibility of defending their exclusion from it by setting up in its most invidious form the colour ban. I venture to say that if His Majesty's Government intervene in this
1254
matter in the direction desired by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, the result will not be at all desirable. I think they will expose themselves and this country to a most undesirable rebuff. Having said that, I agreed with the right hon. Gentleman who preceded me that things are well in Basutoland, I have seen the report of a native council which took place in Basutoland, and agree with the Governor in the tribute which he paid with respect to the speeches made on the occasion. I am certain that the conclusions arrived at were as statesmanlike as those come to in certain other assemblies. There is one matter I should like to mention in regard to martial law in Natal, and I should be glad on this point if I had the advantage of the attention of the Prime Minister. I understand, and his colleague will correct me if I am not right in the facts, that in the view of the Governor of Natal the proclamation of martial law was not warranted. That is to say, that there was not, in his judgment, a state of things in Natal which warranted the proclamation of martial law, and thereby the suspension of the ordinary law of the country. I understand also that, on the legal aspect of the question whether such a state of circumstances existed in Natal as would warrant the proclamation of martial law, the Colonial Office and Lord Elgin were entirely of the same opinion as Sir Matthew Nathan, the very able and experienced administrator of that country. But I understand that His Majesty's Government referred to the law officers of the Crown the question whether under these circumstances a Governor who authorises the proclamation of martial law in a Colony is entitled to refuse that which his Ministers advise to the contrary. I understand that the Law Officers of the Crown expressed the opinion that a Governor, no matter what view he takes of the legality or illegality of the proclamation of martial law, is bound to follow the advice of his Ministers in a self-governing Colony. I

1255
should myself like to say that I do not think that that is a question which is or can be set at rest by the opinion of the law officers. I have the greatest respect for the opinion of the present law officers of the Crown, and for the great profession to which they belong, but I do not think that His Majesty's Government, or the Prime Minister himself, would say that this question, which is a most grave and serious one, can be settled by the ipse dixit of the law officers. It is a question of the highest constitutional importance, and one upon which, if the Government have made up their minds upon it, we ought to have the opinion of the Prime Minister himself, or the Secretary for War, both of whom have every legal qualification in addition to their other qualifications to give it. Without venturing to express an opinion of a very decisive character myself, I should regret on behalf of the Governors of the self-governing Colonies that any hasty dictum of this House, and certainly of the Law Officers, should go forth which would bind them, against their own judgment in believing a proclamation to be illegal, and bind them, because Ministers advised them, to take action amounting to what is practically the suspension of the Constitution. I venture to submit that question with great respect to the Prime Minister. I feel that if that position were to be accepted, it would be difficult for any man of spirit or with a due sense of responsibility to accept the office of Governor. I should like to add that to refuse to accept the advice of responsible Ministers on such a subject would be an act of the greatest responsibility on the part of the Governor, but I think if a Governor's opinion is definitely against it, it ought to be proclaimed here that he has a right to give that opinion.
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,: The Prime Minister has asked me to
1256
conclude this debate in the few minutes that remain, but I confess that when I cast my mind back over its tranquil course I can hardly think of any reason which would require any further intervention from this bench except the last observations that fell from the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It is true that, with regard to martial law in Natal, a difference of opinion arose between the Governor and the Government of Natal, and that difference of opinion is expressed in the pages of the Blue-book. It is know that my noble friend the late Colonial Secretary expressed his concurrence with the action taken by Sir Matthew Nathan. No doubt there is something anomalous in the continuance of the good relations that prevail between Sir Matthew Nathan and the Natal Government in view of this public difference of opinion; but I do not think that that actual divergence on this particular point is of any disadvantage to the public service or to the general interests of South Africa, or the special interests of Natal. Sir Matthew Nathan undoubtedly exercises a great influence over the Government of Natal, and I do not think that the influence of this country has been weakened by his independent position on this question. It is a very difficult situation and nothing but good will on both sides will enable us to find a way out of it. I am sure that the Government would never allow such a grave constitutional matter as this to be settled simply by the opinion of the law officers of the Crown on a point of law. It is obviously not only a matter of constitutional law, but of high public policy. I have only a word to say with regard to the two issues raised by the Resolution; they are, federation and native policy, and they are interwoven. The movement towards unity in South Africa is growing in strength and increasing in progress every day. It arises mainly from the fact that the old duality in South Africa which existed before the war has been

1257
destroyed; that there is only one flag; that both races have conic together; that embarrassment of their means has led them to look for a less expensive form of government than they possess at present; and that the natural forces of cohesion have combined to bring them more into a larger synthesis of government. Our attitude towards it has been very well defined by my hon. friend the Under-Secretary. We desire not to initiate, but to guide that movement; not to impel, but to assist it; and we have taken every step to be ready to assist at every stage the Colonial Governments when they recur to us for our advice. The Imperial Government have a serious part to play. We must seek to make any scheme of South African federation thoroughly comprehensive. It is further our duty to see that the interests of the natives are properly safeguarded. But do not let us be too sanguine of the speed at which unity in South Africa will be attained. The sentiment is undoubted, the movement grows in strength every day, but the obstacles are real and serious. The right hon. Baronet knows well that apart from the local and personal interests which cannot but exert an important influence upon any such movement towards unity, there are the divergences of native policy, difficult, though not impossible, to reconcile, and there is the great conflict in financial interests which arises from the railway policy and the railway interests of the coastal and the inland Colonies. I do not doubt that South Africa will weather these difficulties; I do not doubt that she will eventually achieve; but we are not, and we cannot be certain at present in what form the Movement for South African unity will surmount the obstacles I have mentioned. We cannot tell how far South African unity will be attenuated in the passage of those obstacles. We do not know, whether we are going to get complete unification, or
1258
close confederacy, or merely an association of States for certain common purposes like defence, justice, and education. The very uncertainty, hopeful uncertainty, but still uncertainty, which broods over the South African situation makes it impossible for the Government to make any statement as to what they will do consequent on federation in respect to native Protectorates, in respect to native policy generally. It would be the height of folly on our part to say that we shall not deal with the Protectorates in any large policy until such and such specific conditions have been complied with, or, on the other hand, that we are content, on any form of unification being attained, immediately to resign our responsibility in respect to those Protectorates. We must wait and we must watch. And I am bound to say that there is one very hopeful feature in this debate. Members as divided as the hon. Member for Tottenham and the hon. Member for Gravesend put Resolutions on the Paper in almost similar terms. The Romans had a maxim, Divide et impera. That is a maxim which finds no echo on either side of this House, however much opposed in regard to South African policy. We have got beyond that. We have achieved the great realisation that permanent Imperial interests cannot exist apart from the true interests of South Africa. Just as two years ago I asked the House to repose the future of the British flag in South Africa upon the reconciliation and not upon the rivalry of races, so I am sure we are taking only another natural step when we look for a continuance of our influence in South Africa in the union and not in the division of States.
Resolved, That this House, recognising signs of a growing opinion on the part of the self-governing Colonies of South Africa in favour of safeguarding the

1259
rights and future of the natives in any scheme of political unification or federatoin, expresses its confidence that His Majesty's Government will welcome the adoption of provisions calculated to render possible the ultimate inclusion of the whole of British South Africa in federal union.—(Mr. Alden.)

PORT OF LONDON BILL.
Ordered, That the Select Committee do consist of Five Members to be joined with a like number of Lords.
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.—(Mr. Joseph Pease.)
Committee nominated of: Mr. Ashley, Sir William Bull, Mr. Russell Rea, Sir Albert Spicer, and Mr. Williamson.
Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented on or before 25th May, 1908, be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, Agents, or Witnesses be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(Mr. Joseph Pease.)

POLICE FORCES (WEEKLY REST-DAY).
Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire and report whether, having regard to the conditions of service in Police Forces in the United Kingdom, it is desirable that provision should be made, by legislation or otherwise, for granting to every constable one full day off duty in seven; what, if any, alterations in the conditions of
1260
service and police administration should accompany this change; what would be the cost, and how it should be borne so as not to increase the charge on Imperial funds.
Committee accordingly nominated of: Mr. Armitage, Mr. Cochrane, Mr. Charles Duncan, Mr. Hedges, Mr. Herbert Lewis, Colonel Lockwood, Mr. Nannetti, Mr. William Priestley, and Mr. Rogers.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(Mr. Joseph Pease.)

PUBLIC OFFICES SITES (EXTENSION) [EXPENSES].
Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any Expenses, so far as not otherwise provided for, incurred by the Commissioners of Works under any Act of the present session, to provide for the Acquisition of Land for the extension of certain Public, Offices in Westminster and of the Patent Office, and for certain other public purposes (King's Recommendation signified), To-morrow.—(Mr. Joseph Pease.)

IRISH UNIVERSITIES [EXPENSES].
Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of Remuneration, Expenses, and other, sums in pursuance of any Act of, the present session to make further provision, with respect to University Education in Ireland (King's Recommendation signified), To-morrow.—(Mr. Joseph Pease.)
Adjourned at eight minutes after Eleven O'clock.