Commons Sitting of 27 May 1908

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Llanelly Gas Bill [Lords].—As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Ayr Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Bill.—" To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act. 1899,
1062
relating to Ayr Corporation Tramways," presented by Mr. Sinclair; read the first time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a second time upon Thursday, 4th June, and to be printed. [Bill 248.]
Oyster and Mussel Fishery (Bay of Firth) Order Confirmation Bill.—"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Sea Fisheries Act, 1868, relating to a several Oyster and Mussel Fishery at the Bay of Firth," presented by Mr. Sinclair; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 249.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:—Edinburgh Corporation (Tramways, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
Amendments to:—Argentine North-Eastern Railway Bill [Lords]; Camber-well and other Metropolitan Borough Councils (Superannuation) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for amalgamating the undertakings of the Stratford-upon-Avon, Towcester, and Midland Junction Railway Company, the Evesham, Redditch, and Stratford-upon-Avon Junction Railway Company, and the East and West Junction Railway Company; and for other purposes." [Stratford-upon-Avon, Towcester, and Midland Junction, Eves-ham, Redditch, and Stratford-upon-Avon Junction, and East and West Junction Railways (Amalgamation) Bill [Lords].
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the time for the construction of certain authorised tramways of the Bristol Tramways and Carriage Company, Limited, and for the acquisition of lands in connection therewith; and for other purposes." [Bristol Tramways Bill [Lords].
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the sale of the property of the Upton-upon-Severn Town Hall trustees; and for other purposes." [Upton Town Hall Bill [Lords].
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make further provision in regard to the undertaking of the South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Company." [South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Bill [Lords].
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for enabling the Cambrian Railways Company to raise further money by the creation and issue of debenture stock." [Cambrian Railways Bill [Lords].
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make better provisions for the constitution of the Court of Wardens and Assistants of Rochester Bridge, in the county of Kent; to empower the Court to contribute to the funds of the new college of Cobham, in the same county; and for other purposes." [Rochester Bridge Bill [Lords].
Stratford-upon-Avon, Towcester, and Midland Junction, Evesham, Reddish, and Stratford-upon-Avon Junction, and East and West Junction Railways (Amalgamation) Bill [Lords]; Bristol Tramways Bill [Lords]; Upton Town Hall Bill [Lords]; South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Bill [Lords]; Cambrian Railways Bill [Lords]; Rochester Bridge Bill [Lords].—Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) (No. 2) BILL.
  Petition from Southwark, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  DAIRIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Inverness, against; to lie upon he Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Pittenweem, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against: From Macclesfield; and Northern Division of Somerset to lie upon the Table.
  Petition for alteration: From Cardiff; Lowestoft; Mexborough; Paddington; and Wandsworth Common; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour: From Aberdeen; Anston; Bangor; Bath; Batheaston; Beighton; Blaby; Cardiff (eight); Chelsea; Gilwern; Hexham; Long Eaton (five); Meersbrook; Magor and Undy; Nine Elms; Oldham; Penypark; Renton; Rhuddlan; St. Albans; Tiverton; Trenddyn; and Tudhoe; to lie upon the Table.

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Ayr; Dundee; Edinburgh; Glasgow; Kilmarnock (two); Methven; and Woodside; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS (No. 2) BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  POLICE SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Inverness, against; to lie upon the Table.
  PORT OF LONDON BILL.
  Petition of the Glasgow Shipowners' Association, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  MOTOR CAR ACTS.
  Copies presented, of Regulations made by the Local Government Board under the Motor Car Acts:—I. County of East Sussex; II. County of Middlesex; III. County Borough of Merthyr Tydfil [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888.
  Copy presented, of Orders made by the various County and County Borough Councils in England and Wales under Section 57 of the Act, as confirmed by the Local Government Board [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  Copy presented, of Further Correspondence relating to Native Affairs in

  1065
  Natal [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  ADMIRALTY CASUALTIES, ETC.
  Return ordered, "giving the number of ships and other craft of war which have been in accidents since the 1st day of January, 1901; giving the number of vessels totally lost and what their original cost was, with the numbers of those repaired in Government dockyards and those repaired outside; showing also the number of lives lost as a result of accidents during the years referred to; and, further, showing the amount paid in pensions, etc., to the dependents of those who lost their lives, with the total cost involved."—(Mr. Vincent Kennedy.)
  EAST INDIA (INCOME AND EXPENDITURE).
  Address for "Return of the Net Income and Expenditure of British India under certain specified heads for the eleven years from 1896–7 to 1906–7 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper. No. 119, of Session 1907)."—Mr. Buchanan.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Motor Cab Regulations.
  MR. COOPER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the London motor cab companies are requiring their drivers, before accepting a fare to outlying suburban districts, to endeavour to enter into a bargain with the passenger, before accepting a fare, to pay 6d. per mile back-mileage, and failing which, if the driver is unable to secure a fare back, to charge the driver 6d. per mile back-mileage; and whether such a demand in any way infringes the terms on which the licence is issued.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Motor-cab drivers are not entitled to demand return fares inside the Metropolitan Police district. Outside the district the Secretary of State has no
  1066
  authority to prevent a driver making an arrangement with the hirer for the payment of a return fare, and I understand that the drivers have been instructed not to accept fares outside the district except in consideration of some return fare.
  MR. COOPER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the action of the Metropolitan Police in allowing taximeter motor cabs, licensed to carry two passengers, to carry with impunity four, and occasionally five passengers; and whether he will consider the advisability, in the interest of other licensed drivers, of directing the police to secure a stricter compliance with the terms of the licence.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The rule that a cab should not carry more passengers than it is licensed for applies equally to horse-drawn cabs and to motor cabs. In either case, it would cause great inconvenience to the public if it were enforced rigidly or without discretion; and I do not propose to direct the police to interfere except in cases of serious overcrowding.

  Pay of Senior Postmen and Lobby Officers.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: To ask the Postmaster-General when the recommendations of the Select Committee, so far as they affect the class of senior postmen and lobby officers, will come into operation; and whether the officers entitled to an increased scale of pay will receive it as from 1st January last, as has been done in the case of other classes.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he proposes to place all the officers appointed as senior postmen and lobby officers in the new class of head postmen, having regard to the fact that they have always been acknowledged as one class by the Department; and, if not, will he say what will be the method of selection.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) It will be convenient to answer these two

  1067
  Questions together. The case of the senior postmen and lobby officers is now engaging my attention, and I hope to be in a position shortly to announce a decision. Any increase in the scale of pay will, of course, take effect from 1st January last.

  Irish Land Purchase Finance.
  MR. BARRIE: To ask the Prime Minister when he now expects to make his promised statement re Land Purchase (Ireland) Finance.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) As I nave already said more than once in answer to Questions in the House, I am unable to fix an exact date, but the statement will be made as soon as possible.

  Foreign Trawlers.
  MR. WILLIAMSON: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now give the information recently promised as to the total number of steam trawling vessels registered under the Norwegian and other foreign flags.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) I understand that full particulars on the subject will shortly be laid before Parliament in a Return which is being prepared by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.

  Appointments for Boy Clerks.
  MR. SNOWDEN: To ask the Postmaster-General, in view of the fact that the question of increasing the percentage of appointments now allotted to boy clerks when competing for third class clerkships in the engineer's department has been in abeyance for several months, will he consider the advisability of at once increasing the percentage to 50 per cent. both in London and in the provinces.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have recently arranged for 10 per cent. of the third class clerkships in the London superintending engineers' offices to be reserved for boy clerks in the engineering department, in addition to the same percentage of similar clerkships in the
  1068
  provinces which had previously been reserved for them. To increase the precentage of such appointments reserved for boy clerks could only be done at the expense of other classes of Post Office servants.

  Government Printing Contracts.
  MR. BOWERMAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, if he can state the dates upon which the existing contracts for printing and stationery work, respectively, for the various Government Departments expire, with the names of the contractors for each class or group of work, and the localities in which the work is being produced, and if any portions of the contracts in question are sub-let, and, if so, the names of the sub-contractors and the localities in which such work is being carried out.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The current bookwork printing contracts are about thirty-nine in number; thirty-one expire on the 31st December next, and the remainder at various dates up to March, 1912. Other contracts are:—Jobwork printing, twenty-six contracts, 30th June, 1908 to 30th September, 1912. Printing of a miscellaneous character, ten contracts, 6th August, 1908 to 1st August, 1910. Lithography, seven contracts, 31st December, 1908 to 31st December, 1912. Leather binding, seven contracts, 30th September, 1909 to 30th April, 1913. Vellum and account book binding, thirteen contracts, 31st March, 1909 to 3rd September, 1913. There are, in addition, some few contracts for specific works both in printing and binding; the number of such orders unexecuted is between eighty and ninety, and they should all be completed by the end of the year. Some fifty-two contracts, which expire on the 5th July, 1910, for printing calendars of prisons for His Majesty's Prisons, are executed locally throughout the country. Seven contracts for printing garrison and district orders far Army Commands are executed locally, and expire on the 28th February, 1910. No permission, such as is required by the terms of the contract, has been given by the Stationery Office for the sub-letting of any of the contracts or of any portion of them. The following are the holders

  1069
  of the various term contracts (as distinguished from those of a specific work),

  Contractor.

  Number of Contracts held.

  Where Executed.

  Printing.

  Binding.

  Bookwork.

  Job-work.

  Miscellaneous.

  Lithography.

  Leather.

  Vellum.

  Abercromby, W. and W.

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Liverpool

  Anthony Brothers, Limited

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hereford

  Banks and Co., Limited

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Edinburgh

  Browne and Nolan, Limited

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Dublin

  Cahill and Co.

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dublin

  Campbell, D., and Son

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Glasgow

  Collins, G., and Son

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  London

  Darling and Son, Limited.

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London

  Diprose and Bateman

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London

  Drake, Driver, and Leaver, Limited.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  London

  Eyre and Spottiswoode

  7

  —

  2

  1

  1

  —

  London

  Eraser, J

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  London

  Gale and Polden, Limited

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Aldershot

  Griffith, W. P. and Sons, Limited.

  —

  9

  1

  —

  —

  —

  London

  Harrison and Sons

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  London

  Hazell, Watson, and Viney, Limited.

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London

  Hedderwick, J., and Sons, Limited.

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Glasgow

  Keliher, J. J., and Co. Limited.

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London

  Love and Malcolmson, Limited.

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Redhill

  McCorquodale and Co., Limited.

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  2

  London, Newton-le-Willows, & Wolverton

  and the places at which the work is done—

  Contractor.

  Number of Contracts held.

  Where executed.

  Printing.

  Binding.

  Book-work.

  Job-work.

  Miscellaneous.

  Lithography.

  Leather.

  Vellum.

  Mackie and Co., Limited

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Warrington.

  Malby and Sons

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  London

  Millington and Sons, Limited.

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London

  Morrison and Gibb, Limited

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Edinburgh

  Neill and Co., Limited.

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Edinburgh

  Nelson, T., and Sons, Limited.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Edinburgh

  Nichols, J. B., and Sons

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London

  Robinson Printing Co., Limited.

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Brighton

  Stevens, W. H., Executors

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Norwich

  Suttley and Silverlock, Limited.

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London

  Thom, A., and Co., Limited

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  4

  Dublin

  Truscott, J., and Son Limited.

  2

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  London

  Vacher and Sons

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London

  Veale, Chifferiel, and Co., Limited.

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London

  Vernon, C.

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  London

  Waterlow Brothers and Layton, Limited.

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  London

  Waterlow and Sons, Limited

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  2

  London

  Weller and Graham, Limited

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  London

  Wyman and Sons, Limited

  4

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  London & Reading

  Returns of Cattle Sales.
  MR. BOWERMAN: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he can give the number of cattle returned as entering the markets at the places in England scheduled under The Markets and Fairs
  1072
  (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1891, in each of the years 1902 to 1907, as published in Table LXIV., Agricultural Statistics, 1905.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The information desired will be found in the following Table—

  Number of cattle returned as entering the markets at the places scheduled under The Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1891, in each of the years 1902 to 1907:—

  Places.

  1902.

  1903.

  1904.

  1905.

  1906.

  1907.

  England.

  Ashford

  11,087

  12,751

  13,697

  13,370

  13,189

  12,509

  Birmingham

  24,076

  19,333

  16,157

  13,560

  10,374

  9,669

  Bristol

  66,620

  73,080

  56,117

  59,483

  46,861

  49,994

  Carlisle

  61,362

  68,743

  64,371

  59,096

  59,775

  61,700

  Leeds

  33,564

  35,784

  34,182

  33,772

  34,441

  36,205

  Leicester

  67,826

  61,725

  59,494

  52,948

  56,799

  65,020

  Lincoln

  9,860

  10,502

  9,712

  11,855

  11,367

  12,563

  Liverpool

  73,384

  54,473

  49,466

  49,648

  52,600

  58,082

  London

  81,830

  68,520

  67,125

  64,716

  59,355

  58,830

  Newcastle-on-Tyne.

  100,470

  97,288

  96,710

  101,573

  105,860

  107,960

  Norwich

  115,387

  124,199

  121,829

  116,763

  118,790

  123,252

  Salford

  115,061

  105,626

  99,257

  103,962

  107,584

  108,671

  Shrewsbury

  66,605

  69,966

  61,724

  67,286

  55,728

  66,913

  Wakefield

  70,667

  74,773

  67,675

  71,580

  57,586

  58,790

  York

  112,316

  120,384

  87,141

  73,004

  67,289

  53,223

  Scotland.

  Aberdeen

  50,405

  47,757

  53,916

  62,115

  63,595

  59,416

  Dundee

  17,589

  17,896

  18,716

  21,271

  21,453

  21,051

  Edinburgh

  74,589

  71,926

  72,078

  77,949

  76,469

  75,069

  Falkirk*

  11,747

  11,383

  11,142

  —

  —

  —

  Glasgow

  76,487

  60,550

  57,000

  64,832

  65,375

  78,386

  Perth

  61,669

  55,642

  60,208

  115,688

  118,990

  114,198

  England

  1,010,115

  997,147

  904,657

  892,617

  857,598

  883,381

  Scotland

  292,486

  265,154

  273,060

  341,855

  345,882

  348,120

  Total

  1,302,601

  1,262,301

  1,177,717

  1,234,472

  1,203,480

  1,231,501

  *Under the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Returns Order of 1905, Falkirk is no longer scheduled as a place from which Returns are to be made.

  MR. BOWERMAN: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he can give the total numbers of cattle, differentiating between fat and store, returned by the market reporters of the Board and under The Markets and Fairs (Weighing of

  Number of Cattle returned as entering the Markets at the above-mentioned Places in each of the years 1902 to 1907.

  Places.

  1902.

  1903.

  1904.

  1905.

  1906.

  1907.

  England and Wales.

  Ashford

  Fat

  11,087

  12,751

  13,697

  6,920

  7,052

  6,772

  Store

  6,450

  6,137

  5,737

  Birmingham

  Fat

  24,076

  19,333

  16,157

  8,310

  6,840

  5,999

  Store

  5,250

  3,534

  3,670

  Bridgnorth*

  Fat

  —

  —

  —

  1,762

  2,491

  2,556

  Store

  4,313

  5,260

  5,125

  Bristol

  Fat

  66,620

  73,080

  56,117

  11,671

  10,273

  12,190

  Store

  47,812

  36,588

  37,804

  Caerwys§

  Fat

  —

  —

  —

  96

  199

  204

  Store

  3,923

  4,044

  3,262

  Carlisle

  Fat

  61,362

  68,743

  64,371

  12,685

  12,767

  14,010

  Store

  46,402

  47,008

  47,690

  Chichester

  Fat

  —

  —

  19,578

  4,167

  4,303

  4,765

  Store

  17,743

  14,713

  17,610

  Corwen§

  Fat

  —

  —

  —

  356

  282

  340

  Store

  3,517

  3,444

  2,796

  Crewe

  Fat

  —

  —

  —

  10,453

  9,715

  10,039

  Store

  17,095

  17,797

  15,327

  Darlington

  Fat

  —

  —

  —

  10,689

  9,144

  10,296

  Store

  16,095

  13,863

  15,117

  Denbigh §

  Fat

  —

  —

  —

  615

  623

  584

  Store

  3,809

  3,496

  2,890

  * Figures for the last ten months only of 1905.

  § The numbers at these places are those returned by the Market Reporters of the Board; the remainder are returned under The Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1891.

  Cattle) Act, 1891, as entering the markets at places in England and Wales mentioned in Table LXXV., Agricultural Statistics, 1906, for each of the years 1902 to 1907.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The information desired will be found in the following Table—

  Places.

  1902.

  1903.

  1904.

  1905.

  1906.

  1907.

  Derby §

  Fat

  —

  —

  71,716

  34,692

  32,891

  31,758

  Store

  35,703

  33,048

  31,761

  Dorchester §

  Fat

  —

  —

  17,008

  7,531

  6,418

  5,093

  Store

  11,474

  14,944

  16,117

  Exeter §

  Fat

  —

  —

  17,106

  5,906

  5,664

  4,796

  Store

  10,428

  11,401

  13,428

  Gateshead✶

  Fat

  —

  —

  —

  7,596

  12,844

  12,997

  Store

  13,545

  19,084

  20,447

  Hereford

  Fat

  —

  —

  —

  13,557

  16,269

  17,494

  Store

  25,699

  23,822

  24,138

  Hull§

  Fat

  —

  —

  —

  17,121

  17,564

  19,556

  Store

  4,166

  4,097

  4,655

  Ipswich §

  Fat

  —

  —

  35,618

  14,433

  15,232

  13,469

  Store

  24,333

  21,634

  25,102

  King's Lynn*

  Fat

  —

  —

  —

  16,346

  19,650

  19,230

  Store

  18,631

  18,584

  19,344

  Leeds

  Fat

  33,564

  35,784

  34,182

  32,928

  34,087

  35,834

  Store

  844

  354

  371

  Leicester

  Fat

  67,826

  61,725

  59,494

  29,730

  31,716

  34,283

  Store

  23,218

  25,083

  30,737

  Lincoln

  Fat

  9,860

  10,502

  9,712

  6,247

  6,823

  6,841

  Store

  5,608

  4,544

  5,722

  Liverpool

  Fat

  73,384

  54,473

  49,466

  47,733

  49,682

  55,228

  Store

  1,915

  2,918

  2,854

  London

  Fat

  81,830

  68,520

  67,125

  61,316

  56,315

  56,565

  Store

  3,400

  3,040

  2,265

  Newcastle

  Fat

  100,470

  97,288

  96,710

  100,936

  105,460

  103,375

  Store

  610

  400

  4,585

  * Figures for the last ten months only of 1905.

  § The numbers at these places are those returned by the Market Reporters of the Board; the remainder are returned under The Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1891.

  Places.

  1902.

  1903.

  1904.

  1905.

  1906.

  1907.

  Newport §

  Fat

  —

  —

  18,100

  12,457

  13,422

  14,596

  Store

  5,368

  4,582

  4,666

  Northallerton*

  Fat

  —

  —

  —

  8,688

  10,265

  12,970

  Store

  315

  323

  1,207

  Norwich

  Fat

  115,387

  124,199

  121,829

  29,686

  31,269

  33,096

  Store

  88,077

  87,521

  90,156

  Oswestry*

  Fat

  —

  —

  —

  11,374

  13,977

  13,934

  Store

  14,853

  16,581

  18,587

  Peterborough §

  Fat

  —

  —

  20,172

  7,706

  6,783

  6,492

  Store

  14,400

  11,977

  10,460

  Euthin§

  Fat

  —

  —

  —

  619

  611

  840

  Store

  3,148

  2,767

  2,290

  Salford

  Fat

  115,061

  105,626

  99,257

  102,495

  106,503

  107,137

  Store

  1,468

  1,081

  1,534

  Selby*

  Fat

  —

  —

  —

  3,456

  4,517

  4,720

  Store

  1,218

  1,316

  1,239

  Shifnal*

  Fat

  —

  —

  —

  2,112

  2,956

  3,525

  Store

  356

  354

  391

  Shrewsbury

  Fat

  66,605

  69,966

  61,724

  11,326

  9,862

  10,248

  Store

  55,960

  45,866

  56,665

  Stokesley*

  Fat

  —

  —

  —

  1,388

  1,587

  1,878

  Store

  997

  948

  966

  Truro‡§

  Fat

  —

  —

  20,204

  9,706

  9,978

  —

  Store

  9,656

  9,803

  —

  Wakefield

  Fat

  70,667

  74,773

  67,675

  60,737

  47,892

  50,547

  Store

  10,843

  9,694

  8,243

  Wellington*

  Fat

  —

  —

  —

  11,868

  14,850

  16,092

  Store

  5,183

  6,880

  7,645

  * Figures for the last ten months only of 1905.

  ‡ Returns were not received from Truro in 1907.

  § The numbers at these places are those returned by the Market Reporters of the Board; the remainder are returned under The Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1891.

  Places.

  1902.

  1903.

  1904.

  1905.

  1906.

  1907.

  Wolverhampton*

  Fat

  —

  —

  —

  24,215

  28,940

  30,438

  Store

  2,860

  3,247

  3,379

  York

  Fat

  112,316

  120,384

  87,141

  11,981

  12,629

  13,348

  Store

  61,023

  54,660

  39,875

  Scotland.

  Aberdeen

  Fat

  50,405

  47,757

  53,916

  29,993

  28,607

  27,116

  Store

  32,122

  34,988

  32,300

  Ayr*

  Fat

  —

  —

  —

  16,912

  21,275

  20,679

  Store

  7,789

  9,861

  8,850

  Castle Douglas

  Fat

  —

  —

  38,932

  6,188

  6,644

  6,637

  Store

  30,624

  29,857

  28,025

  Dingwall*†

  Fat

  —

  —

  —

  1,717

  4,398

  4,599

  Store

  4,642

  19,113

  19,602

  Dundee

  Fat

  17,589

  17,896

  18,716

  16,176

  15,377

  15,362

  Store

  5,095

  6,076

  5,689

  Edinburgh

  Fat

  74,589

  71,926

  72,078

  44,265

  45,535

  46,276

  Store

  33,684

  30,934

  28,793

  Elgin

  Fat

  —

  —

  —

  8,551

  8,817

  9,176

  Store

  12,799

  15,376

  14,197

  Glasgow

  Fat

  76,487

  60,550

  57,000

  64,728

  65,261

  78,386

  Store

  104

  114

  —

  Inverness§

  Fat

  —

  —

  —

  6,960

  8,218

  8,412

  Store

  16,198

  16,066

  15,292

  Perth

  Fat

  61,669

  55,642

  60,208

  22,461

  23,439

  24,959

  Store

  93,227

  95,551

  89,239

  Stirling

  Fat

  —

  —

  58,510

  13,575

  14,343

  14,329

  Store

  53,876

  52,917

  46,435

  * Figures for the last ten months only of 1905.

  † Figures in 1905 for one mart only.

  § The numbers at these places are those returned by the Market Reporters of the Board; the remainder are returned under The Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1891.

  Supply of Hides.
  MR. BOWERMAN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the prices of hides, standard quality, has risen from 3¾d. per pound on 20th February last to 4½d. per pound on 14th May, the highest price since November 1907, notwithstanding an increase in imports of wet hides of 66,000 cwt. in the four months ended 30th April, 1908, compared with 1907, and that the number of live cattle imported from North America has decreased from 152,795 to 131,971 for the four months ended 30th April, 1907 and 1908 respectively; and whether he will take steps to facilitate the importation of more live cattle for slaughter at the foreign animals wharves, and so increase the supply of hides.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I understand that the prices quoted relate to the "best ox and heifer market hides," otherwise the facts are correctly stated in the first part of the Question. With regard to the second part, I have already informed my hon. friend that the Board of Agriculture are not prepared to modify their regulations with regard to the importation of live cattle.

  Prosecutions under the Truck Act in Ulster.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the number of prosecutions for breach of the Truck Act which have taken place in Ulster during the present year and the number of cases in which convictions were secured; and also, whether he will direct the attention of the local inspectors to the necessity of strictly enforcing the provisions of the Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Two cases for breaches of the Truck Acts have been taken in Ulster during the present year, the offence in each being the payment of wages otherwise than in current coin, One case was dismissed on the grounds that it was the first of the kind in the district and that no fraud was intended, the defendant being required to pay 2s. 6d. as costs. In the other case, in which four informations were laid, the defendant was convicted on one information and fined £5, and the
  1084
  other three were withdrawn on condition of defendant paying costs. The inspectors are fully alive to the necessity of strictly enforcing the provisions of the Acts, and have been giving considerable attention to the subject.

  Upkeep of Irish Main Roads.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, having regard to the fact that Imperial grants are made for the upkeep of main roads in England and Wales to the amount of £250,000, and in Scotland to the amount of £35,000, and to the claim by Ireland to relief in this respect, whether the Government will appoint a Commission to inquire into the cost of roads, with a view to having all main roads kept up by Imperial funds.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) As at present advised I am not prepared to recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission with the object in question; but the subject is one to which I shall give careful attention.

  Purchase of Estate of Mr. J. C Hartnett, of Listowel.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. John Creagh Hartnett, of Listowel, has offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners his non-residential farm of about 200 acres of land situate at Moynsha, near Abbeyfeale, for division amongst the labourers and to enlarge uneconomic holdings; when was the farm inspected and reported upon; and whether any offer has yet been made to Mr. Hartnett, who is anxious to have this land divided amongst the poor of the district.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have, with Mr. Hartnett's consent, had a preliminary inspection made of the lands of Shanbally which are at present in his occupation, and they are about to intimate to Mr. Hartnett the price they would be prepared to offer for the lands if formal proceedings for sale were instituted and the existing land purchase annuity redeemed.

  Burning of Shed of Mr. S. Comer at Williamstown.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that, on

  1085
  the 19th instant, a shed used for stabling and belonging to a Mr. S. Comer, national school teacher in Williamstown, County Galway, was saturated with paraffin oil and burnt down; and what action, if any, has been taken in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The fact is as stated. The shed was a small one, and the amount of the damage done is about £2. The police have carefully investigated the matter, but have not yet succeeded in obtaining evidence as to the offender.

  Wexford County Council and Expenditure on Marine Works.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Wexford County Council passed a resolution in favour of giving more extensive powers to county councils in the expenditure of money on marine works; and if the Government are prepared to act in the direction indicated by the resolution.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) My hon. friend the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture intends to introduce to-morrow the Navigation Works (Ireland) Bill, which will confer upon county councils extended powers as to expenditure upon marine works.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Wexford County Council are willing to expend a reasonable sum of money for the improvement of Ballyhack Harbour, so as to render it safe for the fishermen's boats; whether this harbour is under the control of the Waterford Harbour Commissioners, who will not carry out the necessary work or facilitate the Wexford County Council to do so; and whether he can say in what way the Ballyhack fishermen can obtain redress.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Ballyhack Harbour is the property of, and under the control of, the Waterford Harbour Commissioners, by which body it was built at a cost of £2,667 in 1882. I have no information as to whether or not the Commissioners are willing to carry out the works required at Ballyhack which, I understand, consist mainly in dredging the mud by which the harbour is partially
  1086
  choked. I am not aware of any legal means by which the Commissioners could be compelled to join in the execution of works for the improvement of the harbour. It does not appear whether the fishermen have approached the Commissioners in the matter; if not, that would appear to be a proper course.

  Ballymoney (Antrim) Girls' School.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if the Commissioners of Irish National Education have placed the girls' department of Ballymoney, County Antrim, model school, at the disposal of private teachers of German and elocution; what rent these teachers are paying for the use of the said premises and the equipment and attendance which have been originally provided at the public expense; will the Board undertake to provide for the other teachers in the town and district the facilities in the way of fire, attendance of a servant, etc., as provided out of the public purse for this school; and whether the Board has sanctioned a special system of organisation for Ballymoney model school, girls' department, by which a junior and senior fifth standards are recognised, so that pupils who, in other schools, would be put in the sixth standard are placed in the model girls' school in the senior fifth standard.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that two special teachers are employed in the Ballymoney model school to give instruction in German and elocution on Saturdays to such pupils as desire it. No extra expenditure from public funds is incurred in connection with these classes, and no payment is made to the teachers, who are remunerated by small fees paid by the pupils. No rent is paid by the teachers. The Commissioners have no funds at their disposal out of which to provide fires, etc., such as are provided for model schools. No special system of organisation has been sanctioned for the Ballymoney girls' model school.

  Belfast Public Abattoir.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of

  1087
  Ireland whether he is aware that the public abattoir in Belfast is a standing menance to the health of the city; that nine years ago a new abattoir was proposed and a loan of £30,000 for its construction sanctioned by the Local Government Board; but that, notwithstanding this, the corporation have not yet decided upon a site for the new abattoir; and whether, in view of these circum-stances, the Local Government Board proposes to take any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Belfast Health Commission have reported unfavourably upon the situation of the abattoir and the insufficiency of its accommodation. A loan for a new abattoir was sanctioned nine years ago, but up to the present the corporation have not decided upon a site. The matter is one within the discretion of the corporation, and the Local Government Board have no power to compel them to provide a proper abattoir; but it may perhaps be anticipated that the recommendation of the Commission will induce the corporation to take action in the matter.

  Refusal of Gun-Carriage for Funeral of Daniel Doran.
  MR. JOYNSON-HICKS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the officer commanding the troops at Hulme Barracks, Manchester, refused the request for the use of a gun-carriage at the funeral of Daniel Doran, a veteran soldier; whether he is aware that Doran served in the 12th Foot through the New Zealand and the Afghan campaigns, and was, up to the time of his death, serving in the Corps of Commissionaires; and, if the refusal is in accordance with the regulations, will he consider the advisability of revising the regulations to meet such cases.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The General Officer Commanding-in-Chief concerned has been requested to furnish a Report on this matter.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Chatham Harbour.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admir-
    1088
    alty whether it is intended to increase the amount to be spent upon dredging Chatham harbours and approaches; and what is the amount intended to be spent during the current year.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): The total expenditure on dredging at Chatham and on the Medway during the current year, is estimated at about £24,000. There will probably be some increase in the expenditure next year.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Will the dredging of the next two years be such as to facilitate the entrance of such ships as the "Dreadnought?"
    MR. MCKENNA: I should like notice of that Question. I do not anticipate that the dredging will be sufficient to enable the "Dreadnought" to come in.

    The Territorial Artillery.
    MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state whether any military experts have declared that the Territorial Artillery could be used for defence at once if the country was suddenly invaded.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): To begin with, let me remind the hon. Member that in the case he puts of sudden invasion, the Regular Artillery would be available for defence. If the Territorial Artillery receive the proper support and encouragement to which they are entitled from a patriotic country and are not discouraged by criticism which ought to have been made, if at all, last year, they would be able to play a very valuable part in the defence.

    War Office Contracts.
    MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the proportions of two-thirds of materials and stores supplied by private firms and one-third by the Royal Arsenal have been altered as a result of the reduced output at the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich, under the Estimates for 1908–9; and, if so, for what reasons.
    MR. HALDANE: If, as I gather is the case, the hon. Member is referring to the figures regarding expenditure within the Ordnance Factories Vote which I gave him on Monday last, he appears to be under some misapprehension. The great bulk of the expenditure in question is for raw material, which is necessarily obtained from the trade. The orders for Army services allocated between the factories and the trade, are of course paid for from Army Votes. The figures from the Ordnance Factory Vote which I gave last Monday are entirely distinct.
    MR. JAMES HOPE: Does the right hon. Gentleman adhere to the former proportions—two-thirds to private firms, and one-third to Government workshops?
    MR. HALDANE: We have not materially varied them.
    MR. CARLILE: But have they not been modified as a result of the reduction of work at the Arsenal?
    MR. HALDANE: I do not think so.

    The New Hebrides-Liquor Traffic.
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the provisions of the New Hebrides Convention with regard to the liquor traffic are being satisfactorily carried out; and, if not, what steps are being taken to enforce them;
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY or STATE FOE THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,: Excepting a Press telegram which was published on the 19th instant, the Secretary of State has no ground for thinking that the provisions of the New Hebrides Convention with regard to the liquor traffic are not being satisfactorily carried out. As to that telegram, I may refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Berwickshire on Monday last.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: When are the Commissioners likely to be appointed?
    COLONEL SEELY: I cannot say exactly. I will inquire. The High Commissioner is proceeding to the islands in the course of a day or two.

    Canada and the West Indies—Tariff Reduction Negotiations.
    MR. LAMONT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received from the Governments of any of the Colonies represented at the Inter-Colonial Conference at Barbados last January any communications regarding the resolutions then carried in favour of negotiations for a mutual reduction of tariffs between the Dominion of Canada on the one part and certain of the West Indian Colonies on the other; and whether the Home Government would, if approached by the Colonial Governments, be willing to appoint a representative to a further conference in order to assist them in bringing their negotiations to a successful issue.
    COLONEL SEELY: The Answer to the first part of my hon. friend's Question is in the affirmative. To the second part, I am not in a position to give a definite answer at present. The principle of mutual reduction of tariffs between more or less contiguous parts of the Empire has long been recognised, and His Majesty's Government is anxious to give every encouragement to commercial intercourse between Canada, Newfoundland, and the West Indies; but the Secretary of State is not yet in full possession of the views of all the West Indian Governments on the subject; nor has he heard so far from the Dominion Government. The subject is—in details—one of much complexity, and I cannot hold out hope of being able to make a definite statement at any early date.
    MR. HAROLD COX: May I ask whether in any arrangements to be made, care will be taken that Canada does not give more favourable treatment to the products of the West Indian Colonies than to those of Great Britain?
    COLONEL SEELY: I will bear that in mind.

    Dinizulu.
    MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether for upwards of five months Dinizulu, a British subject, has been undergoing in Natal a preliminary examination on criminal charges which have never been definitely formulated; whether there is any other reason for this exceptional prolongation of these proceedings except that no evidence has been forthcoming upon which any definite charge can be based; and, if there is any other reason, whether the Secretary of State has been made aware what it is.
    COLONEL SEELY: Dinizulu was arrested over five months ago and the preliminary examination is not yet concluded. His Majesty's Government regret the great length of this examination which they feel must inflict considerable hardship on the accused, but I should say that the Supreme Court recently observed when application was made to restrain the particular magistrate who has been taking the preliminary examination from sitting that "it must be remembered that the investigation is a very protracted and difficult one and complicated by circumstances of an unusual if not extraordinary character," and the application referred to was not itself based on the length of the proceedings but on charges of bias and discourtesy on the part of the magistrate. I will lay the judgment of the Supreme Court on this application on the Table.
    MR. MACKARNESS: What are the unusual and complicated circumstances alluded to?
    COLONEL SEELY: The judgment of the Supreme Court will be contained in the Blue-book, which I hope to be able to lay on the Table to-morrow afternoon In that judgment my hon. friend will see the reasons, which are fully stated, for the undue prolongation of the trial.
    MR. JOHN WARD: And after this long examination are we to get the names of the persons whom this chief is charged with having murdered?
    COLONEL SEELY: I am afraid I can add nothing to my Answer. Under the
    1092
    law of Natal the charges are allowed to be somewhat vague, and it is not necessary to give names.
    MR. FELL: Is it not a fact that a large number of documents have been discovered in the last few days relating to the trial of Dinizulu, and also a large amount of arms and ammunition?
    COLONEL SEELY: I think it would be undesirable for me to make any statement on a case which is still sub judice.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I should like to know whether the Government have taken any steps to impress on the Government of Natal the necessity of expediting these proceedings, so as to put an end to the scandal which has led many persons to entertain a suspicion that the Government of Natal are only trying to trump up a charge against this man?
    COLONEL SEELY: I cannot quite accept that statement. My hon. friend will see from the answer I gave that His Majesty's Government do feel acutely that the matter is one of some importance, and they are in communication with the Government of Natal on the subject.
    MR. G. GREENWOOD: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that an application was recently made to the Supreme Court of Natal, on behalf of Dinizulu, that he should be allowed to see his legal advisers without the presence of officials; whether such application was successful; whether costs were asked for on the ground of his poverty owing to the stoppage of his salary as a Government induna; and whether his salary has been so stopped.
    COLONEL SEELY: I have seen a Press telegram stating that an application of this kind was made to the Supreme Court and was successful as regards the main issue but not as regards the costs. The Secretary of State has telegraphed to ask whether it is true that Dinizulu's salary has been stopped, and is informed

    1093
    that this is so. He is still in communication with the Natal Government on the subject.
    MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has received any further information as to when the preliminary examination of the chief Dinizulu is likely to be brought to a close; and whether, in the absence of any definite charge against him, the Secretary of State will take steps to secure that Dinizulu shall obtain the benefit of the promise made to him by the Imperial Government that he should remain an induna during good behaviour.
    COLONEL SEELY: No Sir. I regret that I cannot say when the examination will be completed. Meanwhile I can assure my hon. friend that His Majesty's Government, as is shown by the correspondence recently laid, will not agree to Dinizulu's being deprived of the salary promised to him when he is returned to Zululand until the issue of the proceedings is known.

    Northern Nigeria.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, and, if so, when, he will lay before the House the Report by Sir Percy Girouard on the tenure and taxation of land values in Northern Nigeria.
    COLONEL SEELY: The questions dealt with in the Report have been referred to a Committee, under the Chairmanship of Sir Kenelm Digby, which has been specially constituted for the purpose. It is the intention of the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament the recommendations of the Committee, together with Sir Percy Girouard's Report, but it is not possible at present to say when this will be done.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether it comes within the terms of reference to this Committee to deal with the system of land tenure and taxation in other West Coast Colonies?
    COLONEL SEELY: I do not know; I will inquire.

    Transvaal Committee on Unemployment.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Report of the Transvaal Committee on Unemployment which recommended the taxation of unworked mineral rights has yet been received in this country; and whether he proposes to lay it before the House.
    COLONEL SEELY: The Transvaal Indigency Commission Report has not been received at present, but the Governor has been asked to send copies as soon as they are available.

    Portuguese Natives in the Transvaal Mines.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the number of natives from Portuguese territory north of latitude 22 degrees employed on the Transvaal mines at the present time; and what was the rate of mortality of these natives during the year 1907, and for the first four months of this year.
    COLONEL SEELY: I cannot give later information than is contained in the recent Blue-book, Cd. 3993, but inquiry shall be made by next mail.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: In view of the figures quoted in the Blue-book, is the Government—bearing in mind their responsibility—making any representations to the Transvaal Government?
    COLONEL SEELY: The Secretary of State is keeping a very close watch on all these matters.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: But this is a very important Question, and—
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of any important Question.

    British Indians in the Transvaal.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Clause 128 of the Bill to consolidate and amend the law relating to prospecting and mining published in the Transvaal Government

    1095
    Gazette on 30th March, which enacts that no coloured person shall be permitted to reside in proclaimed fields, except in bazaars, locations, mining compounds, and such other places as the mining commissioner may permit, is intended to apply to the Indian population; and whether, if the law is passed, all Indians, whatever their trade or occupation, would be required to reside in bazaars, locations, or mining compounds.
    COLONEL SEELY: The Secretary of State is in communication with the Governor regarding the Bill, and pending his Report it is not possible for me to add anything to what I have already said on the subject.

    Franco-Canadian Treaty of Commerce.
    MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can give the full list of countries which will enjoy the most-favoured-nation treatment under the recently concluded Franco-Canadian treaty of commerce.
    COLONEL SEELY: I understand that the following countries are entitled to most-favoured-nation treatment in Canada: Argentine Republic, Austria-Hungary, Bolivia, Colombia, Denmark, Japan, Norway, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Venezuela.
    MR. CARLILEwas understood to ask as to the special conditions laid down in the recently concluded Treaty.
    COLONEL SEELY: I cannot answer that with regard to so many countries. I should like to have notice.

    Chinese Mortality in the Transvaal Mines.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies what was the death rate among the Chinese employed in the Transvaal mines and among the natives employed there, respectively, according to the latest Returns.
    COLONEL SEELY: The death rate per 1,000 for the last quarter of last year was Chinese, 18·765; blacks, 28·612.

    Trinidad Legislative Council.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can give the date of the appointment and re-appointment of each of the present unofficial members of the Legislative Council of the Colony of Trinidad; and whether it is the intention of the Government to continue their re-appointment as often as their term of office expires, or that a change will be instituted in the direction of having at least one Member on the council drawn from the ranks of the working class.
    COLONEL SEELY: The information shall be furnished to the hon. Member. With regard to the second part of the Question, the Secretary of State cannot make any statement as to the future re-appointment of present unofficial members of the council on the expiration of their terms of office, and fears that any direct representation of the working class in the council would scarcely be practicable. My noble friend will, however, consult the officer administering the Government of the Colony on this point.

    British Commercial Treaties.
    MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give the official titles and dates of ratification of those treaties under which Great Britain enjoys most-favoured-nation treatment with countries in South America, Asia, Africa, and Europe.
    MR. J. A. PEASE (Essex, Saffron Walden; for Sir EDWARD GREY): The information required by the hon. Member will be found in Commercial No. 3 (1907), which contains a Return of most-favoured-nation clauses in the treaties between Great Britain and foreign Powers in force on 1st January, 1907. (Cd. 3395.) Since that date, engagements have been entered into with Bulgaria, France, and Servia, which are contained in Treaty Series No. 1 (1908) (Cd. 3858), Treaty Series No. 7 (1908) (Cd. 3959), and Treaty Series No. 13 (1908).(Cd. 4078), respectively. The titles and dates of ratification of these treaties will be found in the

    1097
    "Handbook of Treaties, etc., relating to Commerce and Navigation between Great Britain and Foreign Powers," which is in the Library of the House of Commons.

    Workmen's Compensation and Insurance.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether action has been taken on the promise given by His Majesty's Government on several occasions during the discussion of the Workmen's Compensation Bill of 1906, that immediate general inquiry should be held into the best form in which to secure universal insurance to prevent the defeat of rights accruing under the law giving compensation for accidents.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I said on the Second Reading of the Workmen's Compensation Bill on 4th April, 1906, that the Government believed the principle of compulsory insurance to be the right one, and the one which ought to be adopted as soon as practicable, and I intimated that an inquiry into the question would be undertaken without unnecessary delay. I do not depart in any way from that statement, but I consider that the inquiry is likely to be much more fruitful of useful results if it is deferred until we have fuller and more reliable information of the working of the present system than could now be obtained. As my right hon. friend is no doubt aware, I have already taken steps under Section 12 of the Act to obtain statistics of its working as regards the most important industries.

    Receiving Homes for Aliens.
    MR. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in the event of the Port of London Bill passing into law this session, giving powers for the erection of receiving homes for alien immigrants at the port of London, he will introduce a short Bill to confer similar powers as regards receiving homes upon other port authorities in the United Kingdom.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I beg to answer this Question on behalf of my right hon.
    1098
    friend. I can only repeat the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Darlington on the 6th of this month, that the circumstances which have rendered necessary a special statutory enactment in this matter as regards the port of London are peculiar to that port, and have not arisen elsewhere.

    Bearing-Reins.
    VISCOUNT HELMSLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions the Metropolitan Police have to deal with cases of tight bearing-reins in the streets; and whether, in view of the discomfort and cruelty to horses involved in this practice, especially when waiting, he will give orders to the police to pay more attention to it than they do at present.
    MR. GLADSTONE: No special instructions have been issued in respect of bearing-reins to the Metropolitan Police The police intervene in what appear to them to be obvious cases of cruelty, but the use of a bearing-rein is, of course, not necessarily cruel, and there would be great difficulty in satisfying a Court as to what degree of tightening of the rein aggravated discomfort into actual cruelty.
    VISCOUNT HELMSLEY: As there are frequent cases which cause great offence to horse lovers, will the right hon. Gentleman give orders to the police to interfere?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I will certainly call attention to it, though I have no reason to believe that the police neglect their duty in the matter.

    Vitriol Throwing.
    VISCOUNT HELMSLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a recent case where a female prisoner, a few days after her release from prison, assaulted a wardress of the prison by throwing vitriol over her so as to blind her and also another woman who was sitting next to her; whether he is aware that this woman previous to her release from prison had uttered threats; what steps were taken by the police to guard against those threats being carried out; and whether he will take steps

    1099
    to make the purchase of vitriol more difficult.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am aware of the case to which the noble Lord refers, and I need hardly say that it will have my most careful consideration, but while it is still awaiting trial, I am precluded from making any statement with regard to the actions of the accused, or the conduct of the police. Clause 5 of the Poisons and Pharmacy Bill, which is now under consideration in another place, proposes to put the sale of vitriol and similar substances under adequate restrictions.

    Chief Constables.
    MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many chief constables there are in England who have risen from the ranks in that profession; what class of men are preferred for the positions of head constables to those trained to the business; and if he will say why they are so preferred.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Chief constables are appointed by the local police authorities, of whom there are 190 in all, subject only in the case of county forces to the Secretary of State's approval. I am unable to say how many have risen from the ranks, but the number is, I believe, considerable.

    Industrial Insurance.
    MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the malpractices of agents employed by industrial insurance companies and of the large sums representing unclaimed policies and lapsed insurances which are now in the possession of these companies, he would appoint a Commission or a Committee to inquire into the question of industrial insurance with a view to its proper regulation.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): I can only refer my hon. friend to my reply to a Question asked me on this subject by the hon. Member for South Down on the 21st instant, of which, for
    1100
    his convenience, I am sending him a copy.

    Unemployment Returns.
    MR. GOULDING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that his Department is unaware of any source of information enabling him to frame a statistical estimate of the numbers unemployed both among organised workers whose unions do not pay unemployed benefit, and also among unorganised and nonunion workers, and seeing the importance of this information, he will take steps forthwith to devise a means of obtaining it, or appoint a Committee for the purpose.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I do not think a Committee on this subject could add to the information at present in the possession of the Department which has for several years been carefully and systematically studying the means of improving the statistics of unemployment. I understand that the question is also before the Royal Commission on Poor Law and Distress. If the hon. Member has any definite suggestions to offer, or if he wishes to obtain any explanation on particular points, the Board of Trade officials will always be happy to confer with him.
    MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the regime of the last Government no reflection was cast by hon. Members on these Returns?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Hop Substitutes in Beer.
    MR. CLYNES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give information showing the proportion of hop substitutes used in particular parts of the country or in the largest breweries; and whether his Department has any powers whereby brewers who use substitutes in place of hops can be compelled to make known such use to the purchasers of beer, as in the case of certain groceries and other articles of consumption.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member will find information as to the quantities of hop substitutes used in each

    1101
    county of the United Kingdom, and also as to the quantities used in breweries classified according to the number of barrels brewed, in the Return entitled Brewers' Licences (No. 32 of this session). The Board of Trade have no power to compel brewers to disclose to purchasers the nature of the materials they have used in brewing.
    MR. CLYNES: As the Board of Trade has no power at present, will steps be taken to acquire it?
    MR. CHURCHILL: That is a question of further legislation which should not be addressed to me.
    VISCOUNT HELMSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Government have refused to pass a Pure Beer Bill?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I believe I remember a debate on the subject.
    MR. COURTHOPE: I myself brought one in, and it was only defeated through the intervention of the Government.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member is giving and not asking information.

    Cycles as Railway Luggage.
    MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the desirability of bringing the question of carrying cycles as luggage before the Conference now sitting on the subject of railway rates for goods, etc.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I must refer my hon. friend to my reply to a similar question asked by my hon. friend the Member for South West Ham on Thursday last.

    Foreshore Dispute.
    MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is in a position to announce the decision at which his Department has arrived in regard to the foreshore dispute in which Sir Michael Nairn is concerned; and, if not, can he say how soon such decision is likely to be announced, having regard to the ex-
    1102
    pressed local desire that the matter should be brought to a conclusion as speedily as possible.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The decision of the Board of Trade in this matter will be communicated to Sir Michael Nairn's legal advisers in the course of the next few days.

    Port of London Bill—Receiving Homes for Aliens.
    MR. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can now state what Amendments he proposes to move to the Port of London Bill for the purpose of erecting receiving homes for alien immigrants; and whether he proposes to make the erection of such receiving homes by the new London port authority mandatory or optional.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The form of any Amendments that may be required is under consideration; the effect will be to impose on the port authority the duty of making such provision for accommodation of alien passengers as the Secretary of State may think necessary.
    MR. B. S. STRAUS: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest it should be made compulsory for the port authority to erect receiving homes? Will he see that such provision is made in all other ports at which aliens arrive—Grimsby, for instance—and will he see that in any Port or Harbour Bill that is brought in such accommodation in future is provided?
    MR. CHURCHILL: Consideration will be given to secure satisfactory arrangements being provided for the accommodation of aliens brought to any port. When Bills of this character are brought in will be the proper time for the Board of Trade to consider them.
    MR. LUPTON: May I ask if, in view of the great expense of providing this accommodation for aliens, the right hon. Gentleman will consider the advisability of repealing the Aliens Bill?
    MR. CHURCHILL: My views on that Bill are well known.

    Canadian Trade with Great Britain.
    MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the figures, in values and in quantities, of the imports of British silks and kindred manufactures into the Dominion of Canada yearly since 1897.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I will have a statement of the total value of British silk manufactures imported into Canada printed in the Votes. No information as to total quantities is available.
    Appended is the Statement—

    The following statement shows the value of British silk manufactures imported for Home consumption into the Dominion of Canada in each of the years ended 30th June, 1897–8 to 1906–7—

    Years ended 30th June.

    Value of Imports of Silk Manufactures.

    £

    1898

    268,000

    1899

    203,000

    1900

    146,000

    1901

    138,000

    1902

    145,000

    1903

    166,000

    1904

    170,000

    1905

    181,000

    1906

    177,000

    1907

    187,000

    Lighthouse Keepers' Salaries.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any decision has yet been arrived at with regard to petitions for increase of salary presented to the general lighthouse authorities in Great Britain and Ireland some eighteen months ago by the light-keepers in their respective services; and, if not, can he state the
    1104
    cause of the delay that has occurred, in view of the promise made that the petitions should be considered.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I understand that last year petitions were presented to the general lighthouse authorities by the light-keepers in their respective services, and that about a year ago the petitioners were informed that it was inopportune to go into the matter pending the Report of the Royal Commission on Lighthouse Administration. I am informed that, the Royal Commission having now reported, the three general lighthouse authorities are considering the applications and propose to confer together at an early date on the subject.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is there any reason to hope they will receive favourable consideration?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I have no special reason to justify me in forecasting the result of the consideration.

    Railway Men's Bight of Combination.
    MR. HUDSON (Newcastle-on-Tyne): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to a circular issued on 21st May, 1908, by the general manager of the Great Eastern Railway Company to the staff on the line and the Press; and whether, in view of the agreement entered into by Lord Claud Hamilton, chairman of that company, in November, 1907, and the Board of Trade, he proposes to take any action so that the men may not be prevented from exercising their rights of combination, and from taking advantage of the conciliation boards formed under the agreement referred to.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I have seen the circular in question. It does not appear to me to interfere in any way, and I am advised that it does not interfere in any way, with the operation of the agreement of the 6th November, or with the men's right of combination, or prevent them from taking advantage of the conciliation boards formed under the agreement.

    Milk Bill.
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government

    1105
    Board whether he can yet state when the Milk Bill will be introduced.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. MASTERMAN,): My right hon. friend has asked me to say that a date cannot be fixed at present.
    MR. COURTHOPE: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect—
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has put his Question and got the Answer.

    Motor Cars and Road Maintenance.
    MR. CLYNES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the statement made at the last meeting of the Lancashire County Council that the estimates of the Main Roads Committee had increased by £13,152 owing, in part, to the heavy motor-car traffic; whether he has any information of similar increases in other parts of the country; and whether he can take any steps in support of measures to compel the owners of pleasure motor cars to pay towards the costs and repairs which they occasion.
    MR. MASTERMAN: The attention of my right hon. friend has not been drawn to the particular statement referred to, but he has received communications from other sources respecting an increase in the cost of road maintenance said to be due in part to motor traffic. The point raised in the last part of the Question will receive consideration.

    Public Health Act Orders.
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when the orders authorising the adoption of the Public Health Act, 1907, will be issued.
    MR. MASTERMAN: The Local Government Board have been in communication with a considerable number of local authorities with regard to cases under the Act. In several instances the statutory requirements have now been complied with, and the orders will,
    1106
    I hope, be issued at an early date. As regards others, communications are still proceeding.

    Vaccination.
    MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he has caused an inquiry to be made as to the death of Doris Irene Leese from vaccination at Fenton on 9th March, 1908; and, if so, if he will lay the Report upon the Table of the House or submit a copy to the parent of the child, or permit some person authorised by the parent to inspect the Report.
    MR. MASTERMAN: My right hon. friend has caused inquiry to be made as to this case. The death of the child appears to have been due to erysipelas and cellulitis caused by the poisoning of the arm; but the poisoning began too many days after the vaccination for it to be attributable to the vaccine lymph used. The report of the inspector is a confidential document. Hence the course suggested in the latter part of the Question could not be taken.
    MR. LUPTON: Will the hon. Gentleman give reasons why he thinks this poisoning in the arm was not caused by vaccination?
    MR. MASTERMAN: I think the reason has already been given. Poisoning occurred many days after.
    MR. LUPTON: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the doctor when he certified that this death arose from poisoning by vaccination did not know what he was about?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    National Gallery Extension.
    SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if, in view of the Milan disaster, resulting in serious loss of life, from the failure of the reinforced concrete, he intends still going on with the use of a similar system of construction at the National Gallery extensions and other buildings; and whether he will consider the advisability, in the national

    1107
    interest, of causing competitive and comparative tests to be made of the different systems of fire-resisting construction before proceeding further with the work.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,): So far as my present information goes about the accident at Milan, there is nothing in it which makes me hesitate to employ the best systems of building in reinforced concrete both at the National Gallery and elsewhere. Tests of various forms of fire-resisting construction have been made by the British Fire Prevention Committee, and I do not see that any useful purpose will be served by repeating them.
    SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: Is not the same system which was in use at Milan the one adopted in the case of the National Gallery?
    MR. HARCOURTsaid he understood that the Milan accident occurred during the preliminary tests which were intended to disclose defects of construction.

    Deptford Wharf.
    MR. BOWERMAN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether any case of foot-and-mouth disease in Great Britain has ever been traced to the landing at the foreign animals wharf at Deptford of animals known to be infected with that disease.
    THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY,): The reply is in the negative.

    Imports of Hides.
    MR. BOWERMAN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if animals from infected countries are landed at Continental ports for slaughter, if the hides, skins, and offals in a raw state are sent to English markets, and if the vessels employed in the trade proceed direct to British ports to discharge cargo or reload; if he can state what precautions, if any, are taken by the Board to prevent the introduction into this country of diseases of animals
    1108
    through the importation of the hides, skins, offals, and meat, and through the landing of persons and cargo from off the vessels on to British soil; and if there has been brought to the notice of the Board any case of diseases of animals in Great Britain traced to infection attributed to any of the above possible causes.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: A trade such as that to which my hon. friend refers exists as regards animals brought from Argentina to Belgium. All vessels engaged in that trade are required to be disinfected to the satisfaction of officers of the Belgian Government immediately after the landing of animals and before leaving the Belgian port. No outbreak of disease in this country has circumstantially been traced to the importation of hides, offals, etc., and the adoption of precautionary measures in relation to them has frequently been considered, but it has always been held to be impracticable.

    Cycles on the Cornish Express.
    MR. W. THORNE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Great Western Railway Company, in defiance of their statutory obligations, refused to carry bicycles as excess luggage by the two daily Cornish express trains from 13th to 26th April, 1908, inclusive; and whether he will give instructions for separate accounts to be kept for passenger fares received by such trains, with a view to refusing a certificate of exemption from passenger duty on the third-class passenger receipts.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,): I have no information as regards the first part of the Question. The exemption in favour of fares not exceeding a penny a mile is statutory and I have no power to withhold it.

    Irish Local Government Board— Additional Auditor.
    MR. HAZLETON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland who is the additional auditor under the Local Government Board appointed in April,

    1109
    1907, and why was this extra office created; what qualifications for the office has the person appointed; on whose recommendation was he appointed; and is he a member or associate of the Chartered Accountants' Society of Ireland.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): The additional auditor appointed in 1907 is Mr. R. J. Baker, who is described in this year's Estimates as "Junior Auditor (Temporary)." This temporary office was created in order to meet arrears of work. Mr. Baker, who was selected by the Local Government Board for the post, was one of the Board's audit clerks on the permanent staff of the office. He is an associate of the Corporation of Accountants.

    Irish Local Government Board—Remuneration of Mr. A. D. Price.
    MR. HAZLETON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the amount of the credit which Mr. A. D. Price, of the Local Government Board, has received for his eight years unbroken temporary service; whether he applied for such credit, and on whose recommendation it was made; whether such credit was paid to him before being included in the Estimates; and whether it was in addition to the new increase, provided in the current Estimates, of this gentleman's salary from a maximum of £400 to a minimum of £400 rising to £600.
    MR. CHERRY: It would be difficult to appraise the exact cash value of the credit given for Mr. Price's temporary service. It will, perhaps, suffice if I inform the hon. Member of the precise facts. In January, 1907, the office which Mr. Price holds was made permanent at a scale of salary rising from £400 to £600 a year. Mr. Price asked to be given credit for his temporary service, and the Local Government Board recommended the application. The Treasury, upon consideration of the facts, gave authority for Mr. Price to enter on the new scale at his existing salary, namely, £500, which was the salary attached to the post while it was a temporary appointment.
    1110
    This authority was given on 5th February, 1907, after the Estimates for last year had been prepared.

    Irish Local Government Board—Assistant Clerk in Charge of Accounts.
    MR. HAZLETON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the increase of the salary of the assistant clerk in charge of accounts under the Local Government Board from a maximum of £200 to £250 rising to £350 a year is a permanent increase; and whether, in view of the fact that the increase of work under the Labourers Act, which is the ground of the increase, is only temporary, he will see that the normal scale of salary of £200 a year is reverted to when the extra work under the Labourers Act comes to an end.
    I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the change in the maximum salary of the clerk in charge of accounts under the Local Government Board from £450 to £500, in consequence of the increase of work and responsibility due to the passing of the Labourers Act, is a permanent increase upon the Estimates; whether the increase of work and responsibility due to the passing of the Labourers Act is only temporary; and if so, can he explain why the salary of this office has been permanently increased merely because of a temporary increase of work.
    MR. CHERRY: The increased salaries of the clerk in charge of accounts and assistant clerk in charge of accounts are intended to be permanent, seeing that the increased work and responsibility of these officers due to the passing of the Labourers Act will be to all intents and purposes permanent. The financial transactions under that Act will not terminate for sixty-eight and a half years, and the hon. Member will scarcely expect me to make any promise as to the reduction of the salaries at the end of that period.

    Irish National Education Board Secretaries.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the two

    1111
    secretaries of the National Education Board have any authority over the two chief inspectors, or the latter over the former; and, if so, to what extent in either case; who is the immediate official superior of each of the four officers in question; and how many of them and which are now sixty years of age and over, and so liable to be called on to retire by the head of the Department, should he for any reason think fit to do so.
    MR. CHERRY: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that their instructions to the chief inspectors are conveyed through the secretaries, but the secretaries have no authority over the chief inspectors, nor the chief inspectors over the secretaries. The Resident Commissioner is the official superior of all four officers. One of the chief inspectors is over 60 years of age.

    Irish Prison Doctors.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether prison doctors in Ireland are entitled to pensions under their original appointments; whether recently this right has been defeated by the appointments being made for three years only, with the result of depriving prison doctors of their independence by compelling them to rely on executive favour for their continuance in office; whether prison doctors are frequently called on to decide as between prisoners and gaolers on matters of health and treatment, so that the office is one peculiarly requiring permanency of tenure unless misconduct is proved; and was it at the instance of the Treasury that the Irish Government reduced the status of prison medical officers.
    MR. CHERRY: Prior to 1877 the Prison Medical Officers in Ireland were entitled to pension under the Acts then in force, but since the passing of the Prisons (Ireland) Act, 1877, only those medical officers who are members of the established Civil Service and give their whole time to the service are entitled to pension. The only officers so entitled are two at Mountjoy Prison and one at Maryborough. Two of the existing medical officers of local prisons
    1112
    who were appointed before 1877 are also entitled to pension. The remainder of the prison doctors are local medical men who have private practice. The fact that they are appointed for temporary terms of three years does not affect the question of pension, which depends upon the established principle that those persons only who devote their whole time to the service of the State are entitled to pensions. The Government are not aware of any instance in which prison doctors have been called upon to decide as between prisoners and gaolers in matters of health and treatment, and there is, I am informed, no ground for the assumption that these officers are not fully independent in the discharge of their duties. No case has yet occurred in which the temporary appointment has not been renewed at the expiration of the term of three years. The change in the status of medical officers as regards pension was not made by any Government Department, but, as I have indicated, by statute.

    Leader Estate Evicted Tenants.
    MT. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether the Estates Commissioners have yet been able to give consideration to the case of Mrs. Alice Nagle, an evicted tenant on the Leader estate, Cork County, consequent upon the report of one of their inspectors who has recently inquired into all the circumstances; and whether the Commissioners will endeavour to induce the present occupier of the farm to give up possession thereof on receiving an equivalent holding elsewhere and due compensation, or, failing such an arrangement, if the Commissioners will exercise-such powers as they possess to effect the reinstatement of Mrs. Nagle.
    MR. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners have now received their inspector's report on this case, and will consider it in due course, regard being had to the many other cases which are awaiting their consideration.

    Rathkeale School Teacher.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary

    1113
    to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the fact that, owing to the age rule, Miss Mary O'Neill, who acted as industrial teacher in St. Anne's Convent National School, at Rathkeale, at a salary of £20 per annum, which was her main support, is now obliged to retire after a period of forty years service, he will press on the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland the necessity and justice of giving her a retiring allowance to maintain her in her old age.
    MR. CHEERY: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that Miss O'Neill was not trained or classed as a national school teacher, and had never given service as such. She was an industrial teacher in St. Anne's Convent School. The Commissioners have no power to award retiring allowances in such cases.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this lady is now compelled to fall back on the rates? Cannot we press the Commissioners to give her a retiring allowance?
    MR. CHERRY: I am sorry to hear what the hon. Member says, but the Commissioners have no legal power to grant an allowance in her case.

    Kelly Estate, Ballinasloe.
    MR. JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have purchased the Kelly estate, situate at Ballycrissane, Ballinasloe, County Galway.
    MR. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners have made a provisional offer for this estate, which the owner has signified her willingness to accept. Formal proceedings for the sale to the Commissioners are being instituted accordingly.

    Clare Mortgage Dispute.
    MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the fact that Sergeant Moynihan of Carrigaholt, County Clare, was present when Mrs. John Maguire, of Kiltrellig,
    1114
    was beaten and knocked down by John Haier; will he explain why Sergeant Moynihan did not prevent this outrage; and whether he is aware that this sergeant encourages such conduct on the part of men like John Haier.
    MR. CHERRY: I am informed that Mr. Martin Haier recently foreclosed a mortgage on John Maguire's farm, and is now in legal possession of it. On the occasion in question Maguire and his wife persistently attempted by force to prevent Haier from putting cattle on the farm, and threatened him with sticks. Police-Sergeant Moynihan, who was present, arrested the Maguires in order to prevent a further breach of the peace, and both were subsequently bound over to keep the peace. It is not the case that Haier assaulted Mrs. Maguire. The police authorities are satisfied that the sergeant properly performed his duty on the occasion.

    Irish Land Stock.
    MR. KETTLE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, what is the present rate of accumulation of the Sinking Funds provided under the Irish Land Purchase Acts of 1885, 1887–9, and 1891; and whether this rate is varied by Treasury rule in accordance with the variations of the money market.
    MR. HOBHOUSE: Advances under the Land Purchase Acts of 1885 and 1887–9 are repayable by an annuity of £4 per cent. for forty-nine years, corresponding to a rate of accumulation of 3⅓ per cent. This rate is not subject to variation. Advances under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, were made in 2¾ per cent. Guaranteed Land Stock, and are repayable by an annuity of £4 per cent., of which £2 15s. per cent. is required for interest on the Stock, and the balance of £1 5s. is accumulated for the purpose of replacing the Stock. The rate of accumulation is based upon the actual price at which the Stock can be purchased; and under the Treasury Rules the rate varies from time to time so as to give the tenant purchasers the full benefit of the variations in the market price of the Stock. The average rate of accumulation at the present time is approximately £2 19s. 5d, percent.
    MR. FLYNN: Have not the Treasury made a considerable profit by investing the Sinking Fund in the depreciated Land Stock?
    MR. HOBHOUSE: I think they have made a small profit—not a considerable one.
    MR. MOONEY: Will the profit go to the credit of the Irish Land Stock?
    MR. HOBHOUSE: That is a difficult Question to answer. There is the possibility if the Stock rises in price that a loss will fall on the Treasury.
    MR. MOONEY: Yes, but the loss is falling on the Irish ratepayers at present.

    Carlisle Pier, Kingstown.
    MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what payment, if any, is being made to the Treasury by the London and North-Western Railway Company for the use of the Carlisle Pier, Kingstown Harbour.
    MR. HOBHOUSE: The question of the dues to be charged for the use of Kingstown Harbour is still under consideration.
    MR. MOONEY: Are we to understand that from 1st April last the London and North-Western Railway Company have been using this pier free of charge?
    MR. HOBHOUSE: No, but there has been a very small charge.
    MR. MOONEY: Did not the hon. Gentleman's predecessor say that the company should be charged the same as the City of Dublin Company? Have not the Commission of Kingston Harbour stated that they only intend to charge the London and North-Western Railway Company 5s. per trip or about £150 a year, while the City of Dublin pay £2,000 annually, and why was this preferential tariff given to an English company?
    MR. HOBHOUSE: All these points will be borne in mind in considering this question.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Was not Lord Stalbridge, the chairman of the London and North-Western Railway Company, at one time chief Treasury Whip in this House?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Whisky Export Allowance.
    MR. WATT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a bonus is now paid by the State, or a rebate of duty given, on the export of whisky from this country; and, if so, will he say how much it is.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): The export allowance on whisky is 3d. per gallon. If my hon. friend desires information with regard to the complicated questions connected with this allowance, I would refer him to Appendix I. to the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Industrial Alcohol Committee in 1905 [Cd. 2477 of 1905].

    Duty Rebates.
    MR. WATT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, when the corn tax was removed by the late Government, rebate was given to all who had paid duty on corn and corn products of the value of £100 and upwards, if these were in store; and, if so, will he say why the same system is not adopted by him in dealing with sugar.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: When the corn duties were abolished in 1903, a rebate was allowed on stocks upon which not less than £25 duty had been paid. That rebate was, however, granted to meet exceptional circumstances, which do not arise in the case of sugar. On no other occasion of the reduction or abolition of a Customs duty in the past forty years has a general rebate on stocks in hand been allowed.

    The Lord Chancellor's Department.
    MR. HENRY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he could make arrangements that Members might have the opportunity to be answered by a Member of the Government in this House Questions relative to matters which are under the jurisdiction of the

    1117
    Lord Chancellor, and upon which Members of this House may be entitled to information.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (for Mr. ASQUITH): The existing arrangements are, in the opinion of my right hon. friend, quite adequate for supplying information to hon. Members in this House relating to matters within the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor; but if my hon. friend will bring to the notice of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister any flaws in their working, he will be glad to consider his representations.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLpointed out that the House had no power at present to discuss the action of the Lord Chancellor in regard to the appointment of magistrates, and the retention or removal of County Court Judges.

    Excise Staff and Old-Age Pensions.
    MR. SNOWDEN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if the substitution of the work in connection with old-age pensions will be an equivalent for the present work of the Excise officers in connection with establishment licences so far as actual work is concerned; and whether it is expected that no reduction of staff, will result from the change.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (for Mr. ASQUITH): Until the arrangements in connection with the old-age pension scheme are in working order, it is impossible to say whether any reduction of staff will result from the change.

    Excise and Customs Staff.
    MR. SNOWDEN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister when the proposed transfer of the Excise to the Customs is to take effect, and if the respective departments have made any calculations as to the effect of the transfer on the number of the Excise outdoor staff and of the Customs staff; and, if so, is the result expected to be an increase or decrease in the respective staffs, and to what extent.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (for Mr. ASQUITH): The proposed transfer of the Excise to the Board of Customs cannot take effect until the necessary adminis-
    1118
    trative arrangements have been completed, and this will take some time. It is impossible at present to fix a date for the transfer, or to say what the effect will be on the respective staffs thereafter.

    Irish Land Purchase Finance.
    MR. KETTLE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in view of the importance and urgency of the subject and the need that all relevant information should be at the disposal of Members of the House, he will now direct publication of the evidence taken before the Departmental Committee of the Treasury which inquired into the financial difficulties which have arisen in connection with the Irish Land Purchase Act of 1903.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister on the 28th ultimo to a similar question addressed to him by the hon. Member for Cambridge University.

    The King's Visit to Russia.
    MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on behalf of the Prime Minister, a question of which he had given private notice—namely, whether, in view of the fact that the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone had on the Order Paper a Motion that would prevent the hon. Member for East Leeds carrying out the suggestion of Mr. Speaker of raising the question of the Royal visit to Russia on the Motion for the Whitsuntide Adjournment, he would agree to take the Foreign Office Vote on Thursday week.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Government, of course, very much regret that a notice of that kind should be placed on the Order Paper, and, unless the noble Lord sees his way to withdraw it, my hon. friend may depend upon it that some opportunity will be found enabling the matter to be discussed, probably to-morrow week. It may be that the Foreign Office Vote will be put down just for a short time to enable a discussion to be raised.
    LORD R. CECIL: I do not know whether the House will allow me to say a few words [MINISTERIAL and LABOUR Cries of "No" and "Withdraw."] I am entirely in the hands of the House. If the House will allow me, what I wish to say is that I have no desire to stand in the way of the hon. Member's raising a discussion on this question. It is a question of great importance, no doubt, and, though I do not take the same view as the hon. Member, eminently fitted for discussion in this House. I only put the notice on the Paper—I say it quite frankly—in order to call attention to the continued neglect of the Government to provide against the abuse of this rule, and I venture to hope that the Government will now see how very inconvenient it is that this rule should be continuously departed from.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked the Speaker whether, seeing that it was only within the last three years that this rule had been extended so as to apply to Motions for adjournment over Easter and Whitsuntide, it would not be within his jurisdiction and discretion, yielding to the sense of the House, to confine its application to those Motions to which it was first applied.
    MR. SPEAKER: Whatever the practice may have been originally, I take it that during the last few years the "blocking" Motion has been made effective upon Motions for adjournment over the holidays. I must refer the hon. Member to the Report of the Committee which sat on the subject last year.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I would remind the noble Lord that the Government have placed on the Order Paper a Motion dealing with this question, and that it has been blocked from his own side of the House.
    LORD R. CECIL: And you have never given the House the slightest opportunity of discussing it.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The late Prime Minister indicated that it was a Motion he was quite prepared to place on the Paper if it were adopted unanimously
    1120
    by the House. His Government understood that there was a unanimous feeling on both sides of the House, and I should have thought that this "blocking" Motion might have been withdrawn. Then this kind of experience would not have been repeated.
    LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consult with the Prime Minister as to the desirability of putting this Motion down on some date as first order, on the understanding that, unless it is adopted within a short period of time, the debate would be adjourned.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will convey that suggestion to the Prime Minister.

    DEFENCE OF THE COUNTRY.
    MR. HUNT: In view of the unsatisfactory answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, to my Question concerning the Territorial artillery, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House on a matter of urgent national importance—namely, that it is absolutely necessary that there should be in this country a sufficient force of Regular artillery instantly ready to be put into fighting line with the infantry and mounted infantry of the Auxiliary or Territorial Force, and that the country is not safe now, and never will be, until every sound man is available for defence
    MR. SPEAKER: I think the proposal of the hon. Member errs in two respects. First of all, it is not definite and embraces far too many subjects; secondly, it can hardly be called urgent, because I presume there will be no invasion before Whitsuntide.

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 Access to Mountains Bill): Colonel Seely; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Access to Mountains Bill): Sir John Dewar.
Report to lie upon the Table.

PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
Fourth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
NEW BILL.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): In asking leave to introduce this Bill, I wish to lay strong emphasis on the fact that civilised countries are paying special attention to the prevention of crime rather than to its punishment. The Bill which I wish to submit is in two parts—the first establishes State reformatories, the second proposes more effective methods of dealing with criminals who wilfully persist in crime. Following upon the Probation Act and the Children Bill introduced this session, the first part of the Bill is the completion of a definite scheme for dealing with young offenders up to the age of twenty-one years or even a higher age. It is proposed by the Bill to establish the Borstal system formally by law, and the proposed State reformatories will be known as Borstal institutions. When a young person is convicted on indictment the Court has power to sentence him to not less than one year and not more than three years in a Borstal institution; but difficulty has arisen under the tentative system, because Courts could not have full knowledge of the main characteristics of an offender or of his fitness for the special treatment and training provided in such an institution. The Bill provides, therefore, that Courts shall pronounce alternative sentences of penal servitude or imprisonment, so that if it is clearly evident that the subject of the sentence is not fit for the Borstal treatment, then the alternative system may come into force. The age under the Bill ranges from sixteen to twenty-one years, and power is given to the Secretary of State in certain cases to extend that age, and powers are also given to the Secretary of State and to the Prison Commissioners to transfer prisoners from prison to the Borstal Institution, either for the whole or for part of the sentence. There is also power to acquire land, to erect buildings,
  1122
  and to make regulations. Power is given to the Secretary of State in the case of incorrigibles to commute the unexpired residue of the Borstal detention to a term of imprisonment in no case exceeding the unexpired residue. On the other hand the Secretary of State is to have power after six months' Borstal detention to release on licence and on probation, if the character of the prisoner seems to deserve it. These are the main provisions of Part I. of the Bill, and they are, I hope, thoroughly non-contentious. But now I come to the second part, which, undoubtedly, raises a new question, on which there may be genuine and, perhaps, strong differences of opinion. But the proposals are the outcome of careful study and long consideration. A Court, on the finding of a jury, is to have power to sentence an habitual criminal to a term of preventive detention, which will continue until the man gives bona fide and sufficient assurance that he will take to an honest life, or until by age or infirmity he becomes physically incapable of resuming a life of crime. In no case, therefore, is life imprisonment contemplated, and I wish to direct attention to the fact that it will be open to any man to secure his discharge on reasonable conditions. What is the general reason of this change in the law? The present system is sufficiently deterrent to 50 or 60 per cent. of prisoners; but it is not deterrent to two classes. The first of these is that class which is a nuisance rather than a danger to the State, those who are criminals chiefly because of physical or mental deficiency rather than by reason of a settled intention to pursue a life of crime. For that class the present system is not the right one. I am not in a position to deal with that large subject at the moment; but I hope before long a new and more appropriate system will be set up for those persons. A second and far smaller class of prisoners consists of more formidable offenders, men who are physically fit, who take to crime by preference, decline work when it is offered them, and refuse the helping hand. They laugh at the present system of imprisonment; and when they leave prison it is practically certain that they will return sooner or later. Speaking generally, men belonging to this class

  1123
  when in prison are excellently behaved; they are orthodox worshippers in chapel, and in many cases are regular attendants at Communion. Let me present one object lesson to the House. Every night 8,000 police march from the stations to their beats in the Metropolis. That large number is needed because there are at large in London some hundreds of potential housebreakers, whose avowed and known object is plunder. There are, perhaps, in some of the suburban districts fifty policemen watching, possibly, for one burglar. For each man caught the whole machinery for detection and punishment has to be set in motion and at great expense—the expense of detection, arrest, summary proceedings, trial, conveyance in custody, and, at last, imprisonment. For these men the present system of punishment is little better than a farce. The Government propose that, when a person is convicted on indictment of a crime and is sentenced to penal servitude, if the jury find, as a fact, that he is an habitual criminal, the Court may pass a further sentence, but they must first be satisfied that, by reason of his criminal antecedents and his mode of life, it is expedient for the protection of the public that he should be kept in detention for a longer period. The charge, therefore, has to be separately stated in the indictment, and the jury will have to be satisfied, first, that the man just convicted of an offence has been convicted of at least three serious crimes, and, secondly, that when convicted he was persistently leading an habitually dishonest life. That charge of habitualism can not be made except by the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The main reason for this is the necessity for a close and accurate scrutiny as to whether a man's criminal record prima facie justifies the charge. With regard to the definition of crime, we take it from the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871. The man will have an unqualified right of appeal. After serving his term of penal servitude he will be committed to a place of detention, and that will be a prison specially adapted for the purposes of the Bill, situated in the Isle of Wight, about half a mile distant from Parkhurst Prison. We propose that the prison discipline should be less rigorous than that now prevailing, alike as regards hours,
  1124
  talking, recreative occupations, and food. Under the rules a man by good conduct will be able to rise to a privileged class. He will have regular work within the precints of the prison, and he will be able to earn wages. He will not be there as a hopeless offender, but from the first every effort will be made to reclaim him. Now I come to the all-important point, and that is: How will the fitness for discharge be determined? This is what we propose. First of all, there will be the general supervision of the directors, who will report regularly to the Secretary of State as regards a man's conduct and industry, and there will be the general supervision of the Secretary of State himself. Secondly, there will be a board of visitors to hear complaints and investigate grievances. Thirdly, we propose to establish a special committee to consider individual cases at regular intervals. The committee will consist of the Governor, some members of the board of visitors, and any other members it is thought necessary to add. There will be at least two statutory meetings per annum of this committee for the purpose of reporting to the Secretary of State on the individual cases of those under detention. That is what we propose, but I agree that the House may probably wish to be satisfied that no man will be kept in prison subject only to official supervision, and I am ready within reason to consider any proposal which will meet the wishes of the House on that subject; but I would also impress upon hon. Members that my intention in proposing this Bill is that, while the system is for the prevention of crime, it is also to be used for the reclamation of even the very worst offenders. The House will observe that before a man enters on his detention period we have these safeguards first, the Public Prosecutor; secondly, the jury; thirdly, the view of the Judge; fourthly, the Court of Criminal Appeal; fifthly, the Secretary of State. After conviction we have, first, the constant supervision of the Secretary of State; secondly, the reports and recommendations of the prison authorities; thirdly, the routine inspection by the board of visitors; fourthly, the special committee to report at least twice a year as to those under detention, These

  1125
  are the principal provisions. Hope and not fear is the best antidote to criminal habits. A man will not lose hope, and men would not be allowed to lose hope when they entered this place of detention. The system we are proposing differs absolutely from the present penal system of long and inevitable periods of detention, for it enables a man to effect his own release. No doubt discharges must be to some extent experimental, but any proved and serious breach of the conditions of the licence will mean arrest and return to the place of detention. We do not anticipate that the mere withdrawal of habitual criminals will achieve our object or will have a sensible influence on crime. We attach far more importance to the deterrent effect of the powers given by this Bill. Men of this class for whose benefit this Bill is designed are usually skilled and competent, and, if they think fit, they will have no difficulty in earning an honest livelihood. Our object is to prove to these men that a life of crime will not pay, and that such a life can only end in detention involving hard work and loss of liberty. If I am told that this is a new departure, my reply is that it is a necessary consequence of the wiser and more humane treatment now being adopted for the benefit of prisoners generally. We have reached a point at which the present prison treatment does not deter those who are attracted by, and deliberately take up, a life of crime. If the Bill provides severer treatment for a small minority of prisoners, it is at the same time a guarantee for the continuance of progressive improvement in our prisons for the benefit of the large majority of the inmates. In presenting this scheme to the House I make no apology for the introduction of a new principle in our penal system. On the contrary, I believe that in this principle and in the extension of it will be found the solution of some of the most difficult problems in the treatment of crime. The prevention of crime through reforming agencies underlies the establishment of State reformatories, and the same method, adapted to different circumstances, is the basis, and, I submit, the true justification, of preventive detention. I ask leave to introduce this Bill.
  MR. EUGENE WASON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if this Bill applies to Scotland?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir, as regards Part I.
  Motion made, and Question, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make better provision for the Prevention of Crime, and for that purpose to provide for the reformation of young offenders and the prolonged detention of habitual criminals; and for other purposes incidental thereto"—put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary Gladstone, Mr. Attorney-General, and Mr. Herbert Samuel.

PREVENTION OF CRIME BILL.
"To make better provision for the Prevention of Crime, and for that purpose to provide for the reformation of young offenders and the prolonged detention of habitual criminals; and for other purposes incidental thereto," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and. to be printed. [Bill 242.]

OLD-AGE PENSIONS (EXPENSES).
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): This is a purely formal Resolution in order to enable us to introduce the Bill. The Prime Minister, I think, in his speech last week, said that the Bill would be circulated and printed and that it might be in the hands of Members this week; but that cannot be done until this formal Resolution has been concluded in the House of Commons. Therefore I trust that the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters will help us to get this formal Resolution through in order to enable Members to get a copy of the Bill at the earliest possible opportunity.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to provide for Old-age Pensions, and to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any Expenses incurred for that purpose and connected therewith."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
MR. CHAPLIN: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I wish to do nothing whatever which could be regarded even for a moment as endeavouring to obstruct this measure, and still less to retard the time when we shall have the Bill in our hands. I was going to make a suggestion which I think will be for the general convenience of the House, and that is that this Resolution might have been postponed until we had an opportunity of seeing the Bill. I do not quite understand from the right hon. Gentleman whether the passing of this Resolution is a necessary preliminary or not to the introduction of the Bill.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am advised so.
MR. CHAPLIN: I have grave doubts on the subject, but if the right hon. Gentleman says it is so I have no more to say. The Resolution is a very broad one, and I am going to ask one or two questions with regard to it. I do not know whether there is anything in the Orders of the House to prevent it, but I think it would be a great convenience if such Resolutions were printed in the Order Paper. I hope the practice may be adopted in the future. We are told that the Resolution covers all the expenses connected with the scheme of the Prime Minister, and that the cost of the scheme is to be £6,000,000. Am I right in supposing that this Resolution covers the whole of that sum, and does it include the expenses of administration? As far as I know, it is a novel precedent to introduce a large measure of this kind into the House of Commons, involving immense expenditure without some information as to the sources from which the money is to come. But we have been told nothing, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, if he can, before the Resolution is passed, will give us information at any rate as to the sources from which
1128
the expenses necessary under the terms of the Resolution are to be provided. Of course everybody knows that the great difficulty in connection with the provision of any scheme for old-age pensions has always hitherto been this: Where is the money to come from, and how is it to be provided? At first sight, I admit that when the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Budget, it did appear a remarkable feat that the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer should have been able not only largely to reduce taxation, but to provide for a scheme of old-age pensions at one and the same time; although it is true that he had enjoyed unusual facilities, and occupied a most exceptional position for carrying a measure of this kind and of providing the means for it. But that is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman has not done. If I understood, his speech aright he proposed, it is true, to provide a very small sum, perhaps something like a fourth of the cost of the scheme, during the current financial year, but as to the rest of his scheme, he has made no provisions at all; he has left it as a legacy to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I do not at all envy the right hon. Gentleman, having regard to the enormous liabilities which the Government are heaping up for themselves, and by which of course the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be confronted when he has to frame his Budget. It is upon these various points, without desiring in the slightest to offer any obstructive opposition to this measure, that I think we are entitled to have some information from the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman has asked me to enter upon a very wide field of inquiry and discussion. He wants me to give a financial statement to the House not merely as to the expense of this scheme but as to the sources from which the Exchequer is likely to be able to raise the necessary funds to meet that expenditure. It is not merely an explanation of the whole scheme of old-age pensions he asks for, but it is also an explanation of next year's Budget.
MR. CHAPLIN: I have asked for no information except upon points which

1129
arise directly and distinctly out of the Resolution which has just been moved.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has gone a little beyond that. He asked me to explain to the House how we propose to raise the necessary funds to provide for the expenses of this scheme. I should have thought that that was going far beyond the limits which are usual or allowed even if we have a discussion of this formal Resolution I think I should not be justified in doing so, and right hon. Gentlemen on that bench would find it very embarrassing to themselves later on, when they have to formulate Resolutions of this kind. We had several of these formal Resolutions yesterday, and discussed the limit within which the debate on them really should proceed. It was generally admitted that they were purely formal stages, rather in the nature of an authority to the Government to introduce Bills with financial provisions in them, and that is really the case here. I cannot produce my old-age pension scheme unless I get this Resolution. All the questions that have been put would be very relevant to the scheme itself on the Second Reading of the Bill, but not to a formal Resolution of this kind. I admit that I have tried it, but quite unsuccessfully, and I think I am following a good example, and am not justified in entering upon a discussion upon the character and essence of the scheme.
SIR F. BANBURYthought the right hon. Gentleman was in error in saying it was necessary to get the Resolution before the Bill could be introduced. Last session not only was the Scottish Land Bill introduced before the Resolution was passed, but the Second Reading was taken and the Bill sent to a Committee.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: May I point out the difference? The financial provisions of that Bill were purely incidental. It was only one clause in the whole scheme. It was not in its nature a Bill founded on finance. The whole essence of this scheme is finance. This is a provision for the expenditure of millions of money, therefore the foundation of the scheme is finance, and you must have a Resolution.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that that was the first time he had ever heard that the procedure of that House was regulated by the amount of money involved, and that for a Bill dealing with £1,000,000 they had a procedure different from that for a Bill dealing with £500,000. That was not the rule of the House, and it had never been in force. His idea was that the amount to be provided under the Scottish Holdings Bill was something like £100,000, but he differed from the right hon. Gentleman when he said the money had anything to do with it, because the whole essence of the Bill depended on what the new Department would be able to do in creating new holdings. The reason given by the right hon. Gentleman for taking this stage at the present moment was not founded on fact, and had never been advanced before. Then he had said this was a purely formal Resolution, and that it was understood that these Resolutions were to be taken without discussion. But, unless he was very much mistaken, on two occasions on the introduction of a Resolution regarding the Aliens Bill, a large amount of the time of the House was given to it. It did not concern a large sum of money, but on the principle of the right hon. Gentleman, that they were to take a different course of procedure when large sums of money were concerned, and that the whole essence of the Bill was the expenditure of large sums of money, then this was an important occasion, and there-should be a much longer discussion upon this Resolution than upon any other. His right hon. friend the Member for. Wimbledon had observed upon the fact that it was very inconvenient that there was nothing on the Paper to show Members what was going to be discussed. Those who sat behind the right hon. Gentleman had been very much concerned during this session with that fact, and had over and over again brought to the notice of the Government that when they were in opposition they Were equally concerned, and they had some justification in supposing that when the power was in their hands they would put an end to the system. They were borne out by the Prime Minister, who on the previous day had regretted the manner in which these Resolutions were presented, because they were in the custody of the clerks and Members were

1131
unable to obtain any information on the subject. A very simple act would remedy that evil. All the Leader of the House had to do was to instruct the officials of the House to have a copy put in the Vote Office, so that every Member would be able to find out what was going to take place. It would be perfectly easy for the Government to give facilities which they demanded when in opposition. They had had an opportunity of seeing the inconsistency of right hon. Gentlemen on the previous day. He hoped they would not be obliged to point it out every day. The question before them was extremely important. He was glad to see the hon. Member for Preston in his place, and hoped they would have the pleasure of listening to one of those excellent and sensible speeches with which he so often enlightened the House. By this Resolution the House was binding itself to authorise the payment of any sum of money—there was no limit to it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that this concerned millions of money. Millions of money to him were a very important matter. A million without the "s" at the end was a very important matter, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer talked in an airy way about the expenditure of millions it frightened an old-fashioned Tory who he believed was perhaps sometimes, according to the President of the Board of Trade, a little archaic, and made him feel as if he would prefer to have lived in the old days when one did not spend millions without having given some little consideration to where they were to come from. He did not know where they were going to get these millions. The right hon. Gentleman knew what he was going to spend and he ought to have told them that, and where it was coming from, in the Resolution. The object of Committee of Ways and Means was to prevent Cabinet Ministers grasping the money of the taxpayer, and he hoped they would be able to do something to save the money of the taxpayer from the grasp of the right hon. Gentleman. He proposed to move to insert at the end of the Resolution the words "such amount not to exceed £1,200,000." The right hon. Gentleman looked astonished at that, but surely after the remarks he had made he did not expect him to provide him with millions. £1,200,000 was more than a million,
1132
and, therefore, one might say it was millions. He had gone a very long way in the direction the right hon. Gentleman desired, and he was not at all sure that the hon. Member for Preston would approve of his course. But it was always open to the hon. Member to move an Amendment to the Amendment, and if he considered £1,200,000 too much, and could show him good reasons for reducing the amount, he would be very pleased to follow the hon. Member into the lobby. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, if he refused to accede to his Amendment, would advance some really adequate reasons why it should not be accepted. He had endeavoured to deal extremely leniently with the Government, and had in no way endeavoured to prevent the passage of the Bill. He did not approve of it, but he had endeavoured to make the best of a bad job, and had put down the amount which the Prime Minister had specified as that which would be required during this year for the administration of the Act; therefore he was not open to reproach that for a Party or any other purpose he had put down an impossible sum. It was only just that the House of Commons should have some little control over the expenditure of the nation. He was willing to take the word of the Prime Minister as to the amount to be spent, but he wished to pin him to it, and he could not conceive that anyone, however anxious to advance the cause of old-age pensions, could object to the sum which the Prime Minister had himself specified.
Amendment proposed—
"At the end of the Question, to add the words 'not exceeding in amount £1,200,000.'"—(Sir F. Banbury).
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. STANLEY WILSONprotested against the House being asked to pass a Resolution of the highest importance without any satisfactory explanation. He would like to ask what had become of those economists below the gangway pledged to retrenchment? They were never there when proposals of this character were brought before the House. The Government were playing ducks and

1133
drakes with the finances of the country. They were thinking only of the present and nothing of the future. When they were asked to say how they were going to provide for the old-age pension scheme, they candidly admitted that they did not know. They were a Government of gamblers. A member of the Government said the other day that the Territorial system was a huge gamble, and now they had the Government gambling with the national finances. He was talking to a supporter of the Government in that House about the scheme. He asked him what his candid opinion was as to the way in which the Government intended to find the necessary money. His reply was, "It has nothing to do with us, your Party will have to do that." Was that sound finance? The Government brought forward proposals and expected the Government who followed to carry them into effect. He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would inform the House how many millions he really wanted, and what the expenses of carrying out the scheme would be. Otherwise he would have pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I can hardly believe that the hon. Baronet is serious in moving the Amendment.
SIR F. BANBURY: Certainly I am.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Its effect will be to limit the operation of the Old-Age Pension Bill to the period between 1st January and 31st March next. After that date not a single person over seventy could receive a penny. If that is what the hon. baronet means the sooner we take the decision of the House upon it the better.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think probably my hon. friend will not press the Amendment to a division. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already pointed out, this Resolution does not deal with the finances of the year—in which case the Amendment would be perfectly appropriate—but with all the expense which is at any time going to be incurred under the Government Bill. Therefore we cannot lay down in this Resolution that the Bill is to be so framed that at no future time
1134
is the money to exceed the sum of £1,200,000. But leaving that point and coming to the more general aspects of the question, I think my hon. friends are perfectly justified in the view that this is a Resolution of a very exceptional character, and that if ever there was a case' in which it was useful to have an opportunity of considering the financial obligations which we were undertaking before proceeding to legislate, surely it was the present occasion. Ordinarily when we pass one of these Resolutions they are formal from the financial point of view. But we are to-day passing a Resolution which is to enable us to bring in a Bill which is going entirely to upset in one direction or another, in one form or another, the whole financial system of the country. We are to-day passing a Resolution, the first stage of a Bill, which, whatever merits it may possess—and I for my part am most anxious to see the broad objects aimed at by an old-age pensions scheme carried out—will alter the whole complexion and substance of every Budget which every Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to bring in during the lifetime of the Members of the present Parliament. That is a very serious thing. Last year the Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, advised us to look ahead in our finance, not merely to consider the year's finance in isolation, but to consider it in relation to the claims which were coming upon the Exchequer in the next and subsequent years. I do not know whether the maxim which the late Chancellor of the Exchequer pressed upon our attention a few months ago has lost all virtue in his eyes, but to those who do desire to look forward at the present time I cannot imagine an occasion more suited for that general survey of our future financial obligations than is given by the present Resolution. If it were only £1,200,000 that was in question I should be disposed to agree with the present Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was unreasonable to ask him on account of that sum to give a sketch of his Budget for next year or the year after, or to go in detail into the merits or demerits of the Pension Bill for which he and his Government are responsible: but the right hon. Gentleman knows well enough that, while all of us must be anxious that the Pension Bill which the Government are bringing in shall not merely relieve the

1135
unmerited burdens of old age, but also be one which does nothing to impair the spirit of thrift, yet there is not a man who does not know that behind these objects the financial questions which this Bill is going to raise, and of which this debate is only the forerunner, are of the most serious kind. Everyone knows that the six millions which this scheme is to cost is but the beginning of an annual charge. In spite of the appeal made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the night before last to my right hon. friend the Member for East Worcestershire not to make any suggestions which would increase the immediate charges upon the Exchequer in connection with the Pension Bill, everybody knows that it is perfectly impossible, that it is contemplated neither by the authors of the Bill nor by its critics, that the ultimate charge upon the taxpayers of this country is going to be limited to the six millions of which the Prime Minister spoke in his Budget speech. It is the beginning of a far larger expenditure. We have no suggestion made by the Government, who are responsible for the Bill, that they have in their mind even the slightest idea of how these obligations are going to be met. I have endeavoured to think out how the matter is to be dealt with, and I can see no alternatives except, on the one hand, an enormous additional charge on the direct taxation of this country—the merits or demerits of which I will not discuss now, but which will have an effect upon the industry and upon the prosperity of this country which I do not think anybody is likely to question—and, on the other hand, a great widening of the basis of taxation, a policy against which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have, in a very rash spirit, in my opinion, committed themselves strongly and even violently. If this Resolution authorises a Bill which is going inevitably to have the consequences which I have foreshadowed, surely the Government cannot complain if we take the opportunity of expressing our own anxieties on the subject, and, at the same time, of asking them, without giving the details of Budgets not yet in being, to indicate to the Committee and to the country from what sources of revenue they propose to draw these sums which are going to alter the whole character of future Budgets, even of the next Budget, and still more of the Budget
1136
which will follow the next, so that the country and the House may approach the question of how they are going to deal with old-age pensions with the knowledge which is absolutely necessary, the financial knowledge, as well as what I may call the social knowledge, incident to the consideration of the subject. Surely we may ask that they will help us at this the first stage of a measure whose financial results are going to be quite as important to the community as its social results, by telling us how they mean to deal with the great monetary and fiscal problem which, by their policy, they have pledged the country to solve. This is a fitting opportunity for asking the question. We have no means of compelling the Government to answer it, but I think [that whatever may be said of these preliminary Resolutions in regard to ordinary measures, this Resolution does, at any rate, supply a fitting and proper occasion on which we may respectfully put our request before the Government and ask them to deal with the problem, and to ease anxieties the existence of which they can neither deny nor ignore.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): I confess that I have some difficulty in understanding the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman. He does not pretend to support the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, which positively asks us to confine these legislative operations in regard to old-age pensions to one quarter of next year. The result would be that if the hon. Baronet's Resolution were carried we should have to bring in a Bill to go all over the same stages before Easter next year so as to allow the second instalment of the pension to be paid. That is the plain fact, and the effect of carrying this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman does not deny it, and he does not support his colleague in the proposition he has made. But really I do not think that the Amendment is seriously intended. I may point out that we are now dealing with what has been regarded as a formal stage of a Resolution necessary as a preliminary to the introduction of any Bill which makes a charge on the finances of the country. Does the right hon. Gentleman ask the House to reject the Resolution which has

1137
been put from the Chair? If he does, then we cannot proceed a single step to give pensions this year; and I doubt whether a responsible Opposition will commit itself to that proposition. We could not introduce the Bill, it could not be printed or circulated, until this Resolution is passed by the Committee and reported to the House. This Bill is of such a character that not a clause of it would be in order and could not be properly discussed until the preliminary Resolution has been adopted. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are opposing this Resolution, then they are asking the House to debar us from submitting any proposal this year in regard to old-age pensions. What else remains? An inquiry is made the like of which I have never heard suggested in my experience by any Opposition. It is that we should produce for discussion now the Budget of next year, in order to see whether it conforms to the fiscal ideas of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends. Has such a proposition ever been put before the House? I am not going to respond to any invitation of that kind. I indicated clearly in my Budget statement that we had surveyed the ground in regard to this matter, that we were not proceeding with a light heart and without due consideration for the future; and I ex-pressed my own strong and determined conviction, after examination and reflection, that the means to provide the necessary funds for the scheme of old-age pensions we were about to produce could be and would be found without any violation of the fundamental principles of our financial system, and without thrusting any undue burden on the shoulders of the taxpayers. Beyond that I do not think I ought to be asked to go, and I decline to allow this occasion to be made the opportunity of anticipating the financial propositions of another year.
SIR F. BANBURYpointed out that after 31st March, the £1,200,000 would still be available, though the amount of money provided would not be of a sufficient amount to cover the objects that the Government intended to carry out. His contention was that the House ought not to grant more than the £1,200,000, and if the sum was not sufficient for the purposes of the Government then they should provide for the further expendi-
1138
ture in the next Budget and bring in an amended Bill to increase the sum.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the Prime Minister obviously had in his mind such money Resolutions as were necessary for a Bill with money clauses in it—Bills like the Aliens Bill, the Scottish Landholders Bill, and the Factories (Amendment) Bill. In these Bills, however, the money provisions were wholly subordinate to, and almost a negligible feature of, the legislative proposals. That was not the case here. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, and the Prime Minister repeated, that every clause of the measure really made it a money Bill; and if any discussion on a money Resolution relating to it could be justified here was the occasion when it was legitimate. Though technically this Resolution was brought in so as to found the Old-Age Pensions Bill upon it, it was in point of fact one of the Budget resolutions. The Government had probably considered whether the old-age pension scheme could be included in the finance Bill. If they had been able so to include it, there would have been one Bill instead of two.
MR. ASQUITH: That is the very reason why this is not a Budget Resolution. This is a Resolution to authorise the spending of money on old-age pensions, and we have to legislate for that in another Bill.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was accustomed to the equanimity with which the Government provided for the spending of money without considering how the money was to be raised. He thought it was not a bad thing that he, as an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, should remind the Committee that when they resolved to spend money they had to raise that money. The outstanding feature of the Budget was the establishment of old-age pensions, and the Resolution before the Committee said, "It is expedient to provide for old-age pensions." That was exactly what the Government ought to do; and what the Opposition complained of was that, the main difficulty being to find the money, the Government made no provision in their scheme for more than a fifth part of the expenditure. Was that a reasonable

1139
proposition? Last year the Prime Minister in calling attention to the question of old-age pensions told the House that they must look ahead, that they must not regard the finance of the year as separable from the rest of their financial policy, and that if they meant to lay the foundation of a great and costly scheme of old-age pensions they must be content to cast their eyes ahead and survey the future over a series of years. Last year accordingly, when the right hon. Gentleman seemed likely to remain Chancellor of the Exchequer, and would have to pay for his own Bill, he set aside the sum of £2,500,000 as a nest egg for this purpose of old-age pensions before he had incurred any liability. It was quite true that the nest egg was not enough. In the first year the pensions were to cost less than half that sum, but for next year he had accepted a burden of anything from £7,000,000 upwards, and the right hon. Gentleman had not put by a penny to meet it. He thought the Committee were entitled on this Resolution to press the right hon. Gentleman to say what his intentions were. After all, what had he done? He had suggested that he might raid the Sinking Fund, a proposal which was received with condemnation and regret by every speaker on his own side of the House who had alluded to the matter. Beyond that the right hon. Gentleman had informed a meeting outside that he had convictions that the money would be forthcoming. They wanted to know on what the right hon. Gentleman's convictions were based. They pressed not for the Budget of next year, but for some indication of the lines on which he was intending to proceed, particularly in view of the solemn statement of the Prime Minister last year that if old-age pensions were to be granted out of taxation it was only equitable that a contribution towards them should be paid by the working classes. What conceivable meaning had that phrase in the mouth of a Minister when at the moment that he established old-age pensions he removed one of the very few taxes which the working man who was not a consumer of alcohol or of tobacco, which was not infrequently the case—
THE CHAIRMANsaid that the right hon. Gentleman was now getting a little wide of the Resolution before the Committee. This was a money Committee;
1140
they were not in Committee of Ways and Means, and the right hon. Gentleman could not go over the whole ground of the Budget.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that it was not his intention to transgress order. He only wanted to recite the main fact of the Budget—the establishment of an old-age pension scheme—and to point out that at the same moment the right hon. Gentleman proposed to reduce by one-half one of the few taxes by which working men who were not consumers of alcohol could contribute to that scheme. He wanted to know what this Resolution really meant and what was the meaning of the language the right hon. Gentleman used at Lancaster so recently as this year.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that he really could not enter now into the matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman; he would be absolutely out of order. The right hon. Gentleman had asked whether there was any precedent for the present procedure. He thought that the precedent most in point was the Free Education Grant Bill in 1891. The basis of that Bill was purely financial. He accepted the position of the right hon. Gentleman as to there being two classes of Bills—one in which the finance proposals were purely accidental, and the other where the whole basis of the Bill was finance. When the financial Resolution was moved in 1891 the general attitude of the Opposition Leader to it was very much the general attitude of the present Leader of the Opposition to the old-age pension scheme of the Government. The Resolution in 1891 was not opposed by Sir William Harcourt except on the ground that it was taken late at night. Sir William Harcourt admitted that it was a purely formal stage, and he did not embark on a general discussion of the finances of the year. He might also point out to the hon. Baronet that the only provision made that year was for barely a quarter of the grant that was due under the Bill. The provision for the whole year was not made till the following year, On that occasion the Leader of the House got up and explained why the Resolution was taken late at night, and that was the whole discussion. As to the precedents, he would point out that when an Opposition was opposed root and branch to the

1141
main purpose of the Bill they would be justified in taking advantage of every stage to criticise and—he would not use the word obstruct, but retard the progress of the Bill. He, however, understood that the action of the Opposition was in the main friendly towards the general proposal in the Old-Age Pension Bill, and under these conditions he did not see how the right hon. Gentleman could enter largely into the questions raised by him.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that the position in which the Government found themselves arose, in his opinion, from the entire mismanagement of their business. If they had given any idea in the Budget discussions as to what the old-age pension scheme would develop into and how much it would cost, it would not have been necessary to introduce the Amendment he had proposed in the form it took. But there was no indication of that. The Prime Minister had said the scheme would cost six millions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer first said seven millions and then between six and seven millions. Therefore, in his opinion, it was necessary to do something to limit the extravagance of hon. Gentlemen opposite. As to precedents, he would point out that an authority in the House had stated that they could always find in the House of Commons a foolish precedent for anything. The right hon. Gentleman had found a foolish precedent, which, however, was no justification for the present procedure. The proper course would be to put in some Amendment to limit the expenditure, but he saw the difficulty the Government were in by not taking the House fully into their confidence and by not making full provision for inevitable expenditure. The expenditure ought to have commenced at once: but for some obscure reason the Prime Minister had put off the obligation of making provision for the expenses of the scheme on to his successor. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would be in power next year; but, at any rate, he had pushed the expenditure off till next year, and had landed the House of Commons in an extremely awkward position. He recognised that they had got to put up with having a bad Government with a majority which was too big; and if they chose to conduct themselves in this way, all that the Opposition could do
1142
was to make their protest. He had shown good reasons for proposing his Amendment, but on reconsideration he begged leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question again proposed.
MR. FELLsaid that hon. Members might be strongly in favour of a Pensions Bill, but just as strongly opposed to the financial proposals of the Government. He was in that position. The Resolution only provided for the payment of pensions during January, February, and March next year, but the Budget was not generally introduced till the middle of April. This year it did not come on till 7th May, and if next year's Budget did not come on till the corresponding date how was the money to be provided for the pensions in the intervening period of a month and seven days? There was not the slightest suggestion of obstruction in raising questions like that dealt with in the Amendment. It was quite compatible with the highest desire to further the interests of a Pensions Bill to point out the difficulties that might arise in carrying out that scheme. There was a possible chance of criticism inducing a modification of the proposed arrangements. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that he wished to prepare people who were too nervous as to what would happen next year. Did that right hon. Gentleman imagine that the anxiety would be any the less when he told them that the source from which the money of the old-age pensions was to come was entirely an open question, and that next year he would have to provide eight or ten millions for that purpose? He did not think that that argument would appeal to many people in the country who suspected that they were aimed at by the proposals hinted at by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If a private individual, company, or corporation which had contracted to pay an annuity, and could only see their way to pay the annuity for one year, were to say that in the course of next year they Would have other sources from which to pay the annuity, would that be regarded as sound finance? Would it be regarded in any quarter as prudent business? The present Government were incurring

1143
this liability for old-age pensions, but were not giving the slightest hint as to where they were going to get the money to meet it. He thought good had been done by having an opportunity of discussing the matter. This was only one of the six opportunities the House had of discussing a Money Bill. They had not got very far in the matter yet, and therefore he did not think the two opportunities that they had had could be taken as great opportunities for discussing the question. The Resolution was a formal one and there was nothing before the Committee which they could weigh, nor any proposal upon which they could express an opinion.
MR. BOWLESsaid he had no desire to detain the Committee, but he thought some protest ought to be made from the back benches against the introduction of the remarkable and novel doctrine which had been proposed to day and yesterday. On both occasions what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said amounted simply to the fact that this was a Resolution put forward by the Government, and that any discussion was fatuous and improper; that these Resolutions were purely formal, they were not put upon the Table or the Paper to be discussed, but to be passed, and if the Committee desired information about them they were asking the Government for that which the Government thought they ought not to ask, which they had no business to have, and which the Government refused to give. That seemed to be not only a very strong doctrine, but a thoroughly erroneous and dangerous one. This Resolution was the foundation of the Old-age Pensions Bill and the scheme to be brought in by it, and the question was whether the House ought to discuss a Resolution of that kind. He repudiated the right hon. Gentleman's doctrine that they were not. The right hon. Gentleman said that the hon. Member who initiated this discussion had provided him with a wide field of debate. On the contrary it was not the hon. Member but the Government, by moving this Resolution, that had provided a wide field of debate, namely, whether or not the House of Commons situated as they wore, owing to pledges given by hon. Members with regard to economy, were to be allowed to discuss this Resolution. He had risen to
1144
enter his protest against the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that they were not.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYthought it was impossible to take the line that this was a formal Resolution that could not be discussed. In the case of the Education Bill, which was to involve an expenditure of £1,500,000, they had already taken the Second Reading and there had been no Resolution brought before this House with regard to the expenditure to be made under that Bill. The Government, he knew, thought very little of these Resolutions, but the Resolution before the Committee was quite different from that which would be brought forward for the Education Bill. It involved a great principle in regard to finance which was not connected with the Bill itself. Many hon. Members, of whom he was one, had always been very strong adherents to the principle of old-age pensions of a certain character, and this was an opportunity when that principle could be discussed quite apart from the principle of the Bill. It, therefore, was a very proper opportunity to protest against the light-hearted manner in which the Government proposed these Resolutions. The Resolution before the Committee pledged them to the finance of the Government Bill, which was very different from what many hon. Members desired. Many thought it would be far better if old-age pensions had been founded on a contributory scheme, and this Resolution bound the Committee to a non-contributory scheme which might carry them a good deal further than the finance now asked for. They were pledging themselves to a universal old-age pension scheme, and therefore it was perfectly legitimate that they should ask for some better explanation of how the Government intended to meet the enormous liability they were undertaking.
MR. STARKEYalso desired to add his protest to those that had been already made against the principle of asking for a, small sum now and leaving it probably to another Government to provide for

1145
the large amounts that would be required.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved, "That it is expedient to provide for old-age pensions, and to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any expenses incurred for that purpose and connected therewith."
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

IRISH UNIVERSITIES [EXPENSES].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That for the purposes of any Act of the present session to make further provision with respect to University Education in Ireland, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament—(a) of the remuneration of the secretary to the Commissioners, and of any persons appointed or employed by them, and of any expenses incurred by the Commissioners in the execution of such Act; and (b) of grants for the purposes of either of the new Universities, or of the constitutent colleges of the new University at Dublin, or of the governing bodies thereof."—(Mr. Birrell.)
SIR F. BANBURYsaid on the Resolution just passed the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that as it dealt with a large sum it really did not require explanation. This Resolution dealt with a very small sum, but they had received no explanation of any sort of kind.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): It is in the Bill.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that he was not on the Standing Committee which would have to consider the Bill, and he would not know what was done there. He would be one of the 600 Members who would have little or no opportunity of discussing the Bill, even if they desired to do so, but he was one of those who
1146
would have to provide the requisite funds, and he felt it was necessary to ask the right hon. Gentleman a few searching questions before allowing the Resolution to pass. The Resolution was of a very vague character, and covered a very large field. It said—
"For the purpose of any Act in the present session."
He did not know how many Acts the right hon. Gentleman meant to bring in dealing with Irish Universities. Probably the explanation was that it was formal phraseology which had always been adopted; but one was a little suspicious of anything connected with the Irish Department at the present moment. Therefore, when they saw those words, and remembered that they were only in May, he would like to know whether or not it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to bring in another measure dealing with Irish Universities.
MR. BIRRELL: No.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he had been obliged, owing to the exigencies of circumstances, to make himself acquainted with the phraseology of these different Resolutions and as far as he could remember he did not recall that a Resolution of this kind had ever been divided into two parts; the general Resolution usually covered everything. In this case there was, apparently a very large sum of money to be spent in Ireland. Under paragraph (a) of the Resolution they had to provide remuneration for the secretary to the Commissioners and for persons employed by them, and they had also to provide for the expenses of the Commissioners. He thought they should at least know from the right hon. Gentleman what was proposed to be paid to the secretary, how many persons were to be employed, and what they were to be paid, because the words of the Resolution opened up a very wide field. If much money were got from England, they might be scattering it about in all directions. They might employ persons for a day or two, and hard-earned money might be poured into an insatiable maw. He would like to know what expenditure was contemplated by the

1147
Commissioners, but, at this stage he proposed to move an Amendment limiting the amount to £2,000 per annum. He did not suppose that the secretary to the Commission would require more than £500, and that would leave £1,500 for the persons appointed by the Commission. He was quite willing, if the right hon. Gentleman showed him any good grounds, to alter the amount, and make it larger or smaller as the case might be. But he did not think that they ought to vote blank cheques for the right hon. Gentleman in this manner. He had always protested against voting blank cheques, and, greatly as he respected the right hon. Gentleman, that respect did not go so far as to give him the facilities which he had endeavoured to prevent other right hon. Gentlemen from obtaining.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 7, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'such sum not to exceed £2,000 per annum.'"—(Sir F. Banbury).
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. BIRRELL: The hon. Baronet is in such a reasonable mood that I really think that if the matter were left to him and me to settle between us we should possibly strike a bargain which would give great pleasure to the secretary to the Commission, whoever he may be, because as it is he and everybody else in the matter will be left to the tender mercies of the Treasury, and the tender mercies of the Treasury are very severe. This Commission is a statutory Commission, appointed to frame statutory regulations for the two Universities. It is a Commission of a kind absolutely essential for the purposes of the Bill. There are a great many examples for it. There are precedents for the salaries, which I doubt not will be most scrupulously observed, and the expenses incurred will certainly be of most moderate dimensions. The salary for the secretary named by the hon. Baronet, if that sum should not be in excess, will be about the amount he stated; and with regard to the persons employed, the language of the Resolution has to be used because one cannot put a limit to the operations of a statutory Com-
1148
mission of this kind. But really the cost is quite of the smallest dimensions, and I should be very much surprised if the sum the hon. Baronet named did not altogether meet the exigencies of the case. He may rest assured that it is not an occasion for casting money broadcast over Ireland, or for finding jobs for people, or anything of that sort. The Commissioners will be austere educational persons having he other object in view than to frame proper statutes and regulations for these Universities, to arrange for professors, and a few posts of that kind, and for compensation and the like, which, of course, will come out of the University funds. They will be judiciously minded people and not extravagant people. The whole of their staff will consist of the secretary, and there may be one or two other persons by way of assisting him. It may be necessary to employ persons to find out the facts of certain localities to be visited by the Commissioners, but I can assure the hon. Baronet that this is an exceedingly small matter which is governed by precedents. We have the precedents before us as to remuneration to be awarded through the secretary, and the whole thing will be done on that stern and austere footing which properly belongs to the Universities, which suffer none of the extravagance which I am sorry to say seems characteristic of some departments of expenditure.
MR. WALTER LONG: I do not wonder that my hon. friend has again raised a protest, because we on this side were severely criticised when we made a proposal of this nature. I fully admit that we have been responsible probably in a larger degree than the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, but it must be obvious that the situation is somewhat different. We have never claimed to be the party who were animated solely by a desire for public economy, and the criticism always advanced by Gentlemen opposite is that we do everything in the slackest and most extravagant fashion. But I must say that those who profess these virtues, now they hive come into power, not only follow our own bad example, but use what was done in our time as precedents

1149
to justify what they now do, and they forget all they said when they were in a less responsible position. So far as the general ground is concerned, I do not wonder that my hon. friend moved the Amendment. I think it is to be regretted that on occasions like this—I do not care from which side the Government is formed—the Government should seem to be always unable to tell the House anything definite either as to the size of these Commissions or the precise work they will have to do, or the cost that it will cause to the State. The Chief Secretary told us that we might be quite happy as taxpayers, because the control of the Treasury which will ultimately settle this matter would be far more elective than would be even the vigorous control of my hon. friend behind me, the Member for the City. I am not quite sure that this is a prudent or satisfactory way in which to leave the matter. The Chief Secretary says that he has had experience of the Treasury and that he knows what a stern watchdog it is over public expenditure. I agree with him. I have had a longer experience than he of the Treasury, and I entirely agree from my own experience, for what it is worth, that it would be far better if the Minister responsible for the particular work that is done were in a position to put his case fully before Parliament and get the sanction of Parliament for this expenditure, than leave it ultimately to be fought out between himself and the Treasury; because it not infrequently happens that the Treasury secures economy on one point or another, which is not satisfactory, which is parsimonious economy, and which does not lead to good administration, so that the Minister in charge is compelled, by sheer boredom, and not because he is convinced, to consent to the demands of the Department, and in that way you do not get such a satisfactory result as you would obtain if the bargain was made in the face of Parliament. However, this applies to both sides, and I cannot rest myself on the fact that we have been more virtuous than the right hon. Gentleman is now; but when they have the opportunity they fall into the same vicious way. In regard to the
1150
provision of money for this scheme, I cannot support the Amendment. I am not a supporter of the Bill, and I voted against it. I have not so far been regular in my attendance in the Standing Committee, but any vote I am likely to give there would be in the direction of strengthening, if it were possible, the undenominational character of the Universities. I believe, whatever may be the safeguards imposed by Parliament, these new Universities must ultimately become denominational, and therefore the kind of University t6 which I am opposed, as not leading to good education; but I acknowledge the fact that this Parliament has definitely decided, so far as the Second Reading goes, that these Universities are to be established, and the risk, if it be one, is to be run. In these circumstances, there are two things which seem to be clear. One is that the future of the Universities, whether denominational or undenominational, must depend on the way in which the foundations are laid by the Statutory Commission. In these circumstances I urge on my hon. friend, having reference to the vastness of the subject, and the great possibility, if the hopes of the right hon. Gentleman are realised, that is before this new step in the educational work of Ireland, and to the fact that in this, the greatest undenominational Parliament, as it has been claimed to be, so far as numbers and representatives are concerned, this offer has been made by the majority to establish and endow what many people on that side as well as this, believe will ultimately be denominational Universities, that it is desirable not to deal with the matter with a niggardly hand. Therefore, whether it be in regard to the Commission, or the money to be found for the Universities, I certainly could not be a party to an Amendment which would possibly interfere with the proper and satisfactory performance of their duties by the Commissioners, in whom will rest the commencement of the work. A reduction of the amount might have a very unsatisfactory effect on the work they would have to do. I quite agree with my hon. friend in his general observations, but I wish to make it clear that if he presses the Amendment

1151
to a division, which, I hope, he may possibly not do, I shall not be able to support him.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he was sorry his right hon. friend would not be able to support him in the lobby. He did not want to put any pressure on him in that direction, but it was very important that there should be a certain limit imposed upon these money Resolutions. He also had voted against the Second Reading of the Bill and he did not wish to put a limit which could be open to the reproach of being niggardly. That was why he had asked the right hon. Gentleman what he thought the cost would be, find he would be prepared to alter his Amendment accordingly. The right hon. Gentleman did not think the amount he had put down would be expended, and therefore, there could be no question of being niggardly or preventing the operation of the first part of the Resolution. He thought it was necessary to put some limit to this expenditure, and not leave it entirely in the hands of the Treasury and a Minister of the Crown, whoever he might be, because there might be a new Chief Secretary—
MR. BIRRELL: The Commission will be over in eighteen months.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the argument might be advanced that if the Commission went on for any great length of time new obligations might arise, but if it was only going on for eighteen months, and they were told that this sum was sufficient, that was a very excellent reason for supporting him in the lobby. It was on Mr. Forster's assurance that the education rate would not exceed 3d. in the £ that the Act of 1870 was passed. But the House of Commons of that day were fools enough not to put a binding limit. If they had done that we should all have been very much better off. He hoped they would not repeat that error, and would prevent the right hon. Gentleman or anybody else from indulging in too
1152
generous proposals after he had got his Bill through the House.
MR. CHARLES CRAIGsupported the Amendment as a protest against the methods used by the Chief Secretary, not only on this Resolution, but all through the conduct of the Bill. In the Standing Committee one of their chief objections to the Bill and the way in which it was being pushed through was that all the most important things connected with the setting up of the Universities were contained in charters, which they were not allowed to discuss, and that these important things ought to be included in the Bill. Here again the most important matter involved in this Resolution, the amount that the House of Commons was asked to vote, was not included in the Resolution at all. With reference to the second part, the Bill stated definitely the sum which the House of Commons was asked to grant for the purposes of the University. It was £80,000 a year, and a capital sum of £230,000 for building and other purposes. No reason had been given by the Chief Secretary why they should not pursue the same course in reference to the amount of money to be spent in connection with the Commission to be appointed. The right hon. Gentleman had given precisely the same class of answer that he had been giving for the last three or four days in the Committee. He said, "If you leave this to me or to certain officials of the Treasury all will be well." From his experience, extending now over nearly two years, of the right hon. Gentleman he regretted to have to say that he was not content to leave these matters solely in his hands, and if they had to vote any sums of money for this or any other purpose, he would rather fix definitely once for all in the House what the exact amount was to be than leave it to the tender mercies of the Chief Secretary—whose mercies he did not look upon as tender as a rule—or those of the Treasury officials. For these reasons he should support the Amendment.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 57; Noes, 276. (Division List No. 106.)

AYES.

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

Fell, Arthur

Renton, Leslie

Arnold-Forster. Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Gardner, Ernest

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Ashley, W. W.

Gordon, J.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir

Haddock, George B.

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Balcarres, Lord

Hamilton, Marquess of

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Baldwin, Stanley

Helmsley, Viscount

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Joynson-Hicks, William

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Kerry, Earl of

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Walker. Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Castlereagh, Viscount

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

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cave, George

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

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

Clive, Percy Archer

Morpeth, Viscount

Younger, George

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Courthope, G. Loyd

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Frederick Banbury and Colonel Sandys.

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Craik, Sir Henry

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cross, Alexander

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Dalrymple, Viscount

Remnant, James Farquharson

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Causton. Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Findlay, Alexander

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Flynn, James Christopher

Agnew, George William

Chance, Frederick William

Fuller, John Michael F.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Fullerton, Hugh

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Clancy, John Joseph

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Cleland, J. W.

Glover, Thomas

Ambrose, Robert

Clough, William

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Clynes, J. R.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Grayson, Albert Victor

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

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

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Gulland, John W.

Barker, John

Cowan, W. H.

Gurdon. Rt Hn Sir W. Brampton

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Barnard, E. B.

Crean, Eugene

Hall, Frederick

Barnes, G. N.

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Halpin, J.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Crooks, William

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Crosfield, A. H.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Woc'rr)

Beale, W. P.

Crossley, William J.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Beauchamp, E.

Cullinan, J.

Harvey, W. E. (Drbyshire, N.E.)

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Dalmeny, Lord

Harwood, George

Bennett, E. N.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Bertram, Julius

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hayden, John Patrick

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

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Heaton, John Henniker

Boland, John

Dillon, John

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Donelan, Captain A.

Herbert, Col. Sirlvor (Mon., S.)

Brace, William

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Higham, John Sharp

Bramsdon, T. A.

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Brigg, John

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Bright, J. A.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Hodge, John

Brodie, H. C.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Hogan, Michael

Brooke, Stopford

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Bryce, J. Annan

Elibank, Master of

Holt, Richard Durning

Burke, E. Haviland-

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Erskine, David C.

Horniman, Emslie John

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Esslemont, George Birnie

Hudson, Walter

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Hutton. Alfred Eddison

Byles, William Pollard

Fen wick, Charles

Idris, T. H. W.

Cameron, Robert

Ferens, T. R.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Nolan, Joseph

Starkey, John R.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Norman, Sir Henry

Steadman, W. C.

Jones, William (Carn'rvonshire)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Strachey, Sir Edward

Jowett, F. W.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Joyce, Michael

Nuttall, Harry

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Kavanagh, Walter M.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tiprary N. Mid

Summerbell, T.

Kearley, Hudson E.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Sutherland, J. E.

Kekewich, Sir George

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Kilbride, Denis

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

O'Kelly, James (Roscom'on, N.

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

O'Malley, William

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Laidlaw, Robert

Partington, Oswald

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Paulton, James Mellor

Thornton, Percy M.

Lambert, George

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Tomkinson, James

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

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

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Ure, Alexander

Lehmann, R. C.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Verney, F. W.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Pollard, Dr.

Vivian, Henry

Levy, Sir Maurice

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wadsworth, J.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Price. Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Lupton, Arnold

Pullar, Sir Robert

Walsh, Stephen

Lyell, Charles Henry

Radford, G. H.

Walton, Joseph

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Wardle, George J.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Rendall, Athelstan

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Richards, Thomas (W. Mnm'th)

Watt, Henry A.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Richards, T. F. (W'lverh'mpt'n)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Macpherson, J. T.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Weir, James Galloway

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Whitehead, Rowland

M'Crae, George

Robinson, S.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

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

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Wiles, Thomas

Maddison, Frederick

Roe, Sir Thomas

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Mallet. Charles E.

Rowlands, J.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Russell, T. W.

Wilson Henry J. (York, W. R)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

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

Marnham, F. J.

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

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

Menzies, Walter

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Seaverns, J. H.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Mond, A.

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

Winfrey, R.

Mooney, J. J.

Sheehy, David

Yoxall, James Henry

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard

Silcock, Thomas Ball

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

Myer, Horatio

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Stanger, H. Y.

Nicholls, George

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Question put.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he had a further Amendment to move to limit the operation of paragraph (b). The same arguments applied to this section as to paragraph (a). He wished to know definitely how much money the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take. Why was the amount not put in the Resolution, and why did the right hon. Gentleman object to a limit being put in? He presumed the Chief Secretary had carefully considered the question of ways and means. He did not believe in giving blank cheques to any Minister, more especially in regard to what was after all a contentious Bill. He proposed to, put the second part of this
1156
Resolution into a business-like form by adding at the end "Such grants not to exceed £80,000 per annum." The case differed from the previous section, because the labours of the Universities would go on for ever. They had, fortunately, an economical Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and it was quite possible that he would think. £80,000 a sufficient sum. When the Committee under a Resolution of this character practically gave a blank cheque the temptation to go on spending the money, knowing the House of Commons had no control over it was, so great that some restriction, ought to

1157
be imposed. They all knew the great pressure which hon. Members below the gangway were able to put upon the Government in matters of this kind. Probably the Chief Secretary would tell them that none of this money would be given without the consent of the Treasury, and that they would see it was not wasted. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talked about spending millions in an airy and light-hearted way, but he would remind him that the Opposition were committed to economy and. desired to see that there should be no undue expenditure. In order to rescue the right hon. Gentleman from the temptation of spending too much money he moved this Amendment. He did not wish to do anything unreasonable, but he wanted the Bill confined to the object for which they were told it had been introduced. It was because he did not want this expenditure to be increased and because he thought that without the control of Parliament the expenditure might rise to an unforeseen extent that he moved his Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"At the end of the Question, to add the words 'such grants not to exceed £80,000 per annum.'"—(Sir F. Banbury).
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he could not support the Amendment. The Bill was as bad as it could be, but it had one redeeming feature from the point of view of an Irishman, and that was that it proposed to grant £230,000 as building grants, the bulk of which would come from England, and the sooner Ireland had this money and made use of it the better it would be. He hoped it would be of good use, though he had his doubts. The Amendment would keep the greater part of that money out of their hands for a considerable number of years, and as an Irishman he could not agree to that. Under the Bill they could get £230,000 in their hands in one year, and he said as an Irishman, "Let us have it." If it were in order he should object to this Resolution on the grounds that the amount to be raised on it was not large enough. The sums mentioned in the
1158
Bill would be totally inadequate to set up two Universities. The amount for Belfast University would only go a very small way to put that institution on a satisfactory basis. The amount proposed for the University in Dublin would be totally insufficient. It was a bad University in theory, but it must be palpable to those who knew anything about the cost of buildings that the amount allotted would be quite inadequate. If these proposed Universities were to be equipped in anything like a modern and proper way a sum of at least three times that mentioned in the Bill would be required. But he supposed that as the Chief Secretary had failed to induce the Treasury to grant a larger amount he would also fail to urge this point successfully.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he did not quite understand the objection of his hon. friend. The Chief Secretary had given no explanation of the Resolution, and, unfortunately, he was not a Member of the Committee, so that it was difficult for him to be absolutely accurate in his knowledge of the contents of the Bill. The object of the Amendment was to confine the sum to be spent annually to £80,000. He gathered from his hon. friend that he was anxious that a lump sum of £230,000 should be given. If it was contemplated to give a lump sum he was perfectly willing to withdraw the Amendment he had moved, in order to move as another Amendment the insertion of the words: "Such sum not to exceed in all £230,000." He asked his hon. friend whether he would support that Amendment.
MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he understood the effect of that Amendment would be to permit an expenditure of only £80,000 per annum of the sum of £230,000. Would the hon. Member assure him that the £230,000 could, if necessary, be spent in one year?
MR. MARKHAMsaid he objected to the course which the discussion had followed. It was a pure case of deliberate obstruction. The same argument had been repeated from the Opposition Benches time after time. [An HON. MEMBER: They were

1159
not arguments.] He agreed with his hon. friend that they were not arguments. The same words had been repeated time after time. The deliberate intention of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London was to waste the time of the House. He hoped the House would take notice that there was a deliberate course of obstruction being pursued which was making the House of Commons nothing more nor less than the laughing stock of the country. There was no business community in the world that would allow what had transpired in this House. It was a disgrace to the House of Commons.
MR. BIRRELLsaid he was very glad to answer the question of the hon. Baronet. As he understood him, he found fault with this Resolution because it did not confine the possible expenditure on the Universities to the sums mentioned in the schedules, namely £80,000 annually and £230,000 as a capital sum. These were the sums decided upon after such consideration as they could give to the subject, which necessarily involved a good deal of consideration. The Government thought the estimate he mentioned in introducing the Bill was adequate, but he thought it was only barely adequate to start these Universities. Of course, the expenditure of £80,000 a year was not new expenditure. The present expenditure upon the Royal University and upon the three colleges amounted to £57,000, so that the only new additional expenditure was the difference between £57,000 and £80,000. The £57,000 was purely Irish money coming out of the Irish Church Fund, and English Members of Parliament did not require to take any credit for that portion of the expenditure. But it was quite impossible for the hon. Baronet or anybody else to pretend to say that they could lay down an economical and strict limit for the creation of two such Universities as these. He was very glad the Resolution did not tie up his hands absolutely. The matter would, of course, require the consideration of both Houses of Parliament, and it would be absurd and ridiculous for them for one moment to lay down the figures as absolute so that they could not increase them in case of necessity for so
1160
doing being shewn. Therefore, he altogether declined to accept any Amendment to the Resolution limiting their powers in the matter. The whole subject would receive the full consideration of the House. He could not pretend to say how much it would cost to acquire the site for the University in Dublin or to erect colleges in keeping with the extent of their designs. They had to form their estimate very economically, and it would very likely be adhered to, but, at any rate, the Resolution did not tie them down to a £5 note on one side or the other.
MR. GORDONappealed to his hon. friend to withdraw the Amendment. While he himself was opposed to the Bill, he contended as an Irishman that if the measure was to become law it would be a great misfortune if the hands of the right hon. Gentleman were to be tied in such a manner as would prevent him from making ample provision for the new Universities. In the Committee upstairs he would say a word in favour of giving larger sums than the right hon. Gentleman had indicated.
DR. HAZELsaid he had no objection to giving the Chief Secretary a blank cheque. But he would like to know what figures were to be put upon it. The right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Bill mentioned that there would be certain building grants. The sums mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman did not include provision for buildings such as would constitute a residential college. He understood that pressure was being put on the right hon. Gentleman in various quarters to increase the building grants so as to provide a sufficient sum for a residential college. It would relieve the minds of some Members of the House if they could get an assurance that the blank cheque would not be filled up with figures representing such an addition to the sums mentioned in the right hon. Gentleman's introductory speech as would provide for a residential college. Had or had not the right hon. Gentleman in his mind, as the result of getting this Resolution passed without a limit, the intention of so increasing

1161
the building grants as to provide for a residential college?
MR. FLYNNsaid that some hon. Members must have a voracious appetite for debate. They were asking the Chief Secretary what he would do on certain matters in connection with the Irish Universities Bill, though that Bill was being discussed day after day with wearisome iteration by the Standing Committee. Hon. Members would have ample opportunities in the Committee upstairs and on the Report Stage in the House, and he did not think that time should be taken up at present in the discussion of what was a mere formality. When the Resolution with respect to old-age pensions was under discussion earlier in the evening the Leader of the Opposition made a speech and left the House and he observed, not without astonishment, that the right hon. Gentleman had not returned. An overwhelming majority of members were in favour of the Irish Universities Bill, but hour after hour was being wasted in debating the measure upstairs. There was apparently a desire on the part of some hon. Members to repeat that procedure on the floor of the House. He trusted that the good sense of this Assembly would prevail and that such Parliamentary antics would cease on the part of those who ought to have a better sense of their responsibilities.
MR. HAROLD COXprotested against the language used by the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division. He regarded it as the first duty of the House to protect the taxpayers' pockets. He believed the hon. Member was one of those opposed to the sugar tax. Would he go to his constituents and say that the House was making it inevitable by talking against it? These charges on the taxpayers would be inevitable unless they discussed them. This House was responsible for expenditure, and it was in this House alone that a protest ought to be made against its increase.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that, as he understood, the second subsection of Clause 7 of the Bill together with the Schedules, imposed certain obligations
1162
on Parliament. The sums mentioned in the Schedule for the general purposes of the Universities were described as to be "annually paid out of moneys provided by Parliament." He took it that that was Parliamentary authority to pay those exact sums and no more. Therefore, it appeared to him to be absolutely unnecessary and out of order to propose now any limiting words. Then in subsection 3 of Clause 7 which provided the moneys for—
"Purchasing lands and providing or improving the necessary buildings and equipment for the universities and colleges,"
he found the words—
"Not exceeding the maximum sums specified in Part II. of the Third Schedule."
And when he referred to the Schedule he found £60,000 for Belfast University, £150,000 for Dublin University and College, £14,000 for Queen's College, Cork, and £6,000 for Queen's College, Galway. It was perfectly clear that it would be out of order to discuss the question of limiting either the annual or the capital sums. He took it that if it was desired by any Member to reduce any of those sums it would have to be done by a specific Resolution.
SIR F. BANBURYpointed out that the hon. Member's argument was the strongest that could be used in favour of his Amendment. If the amount in the Resolution were limited it would be limited by a Vote of the Whole House; but if it were left unlimited in the Resolution, then it might be altered in Committee by the seventy Members who composed that Committee. He would not pay any attention to what had been said by the hon. Member for Mansfield. He thanked his hon. friend the Member for Preston for his intervention. He agreed with that hon. Gentleman that it was the first duty of hon. Members to safeguard the interests of the taxpayers; and after the action of the hon. Member for Mansfield it was sheer hypocrisy for him to talk of going to his constituents and pledging himself to economy.
THE CHAIRMAN: The use of the word "hypocrisy" is out of order as applied to an hon. Member.
SIR P. BANBUTRYbegged to withdraw the word "hypocrisy." He did not think he had ever before been guilty of a Parliamentary breach of order. But he believed the Committee would admit
that he had sufficient provocation for it on the present occasion.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 48; Noes, 277. (Division List No. 107.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Helmsley, Viscount

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Kerry, Earl of

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

Thornton, Percy M.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Valentia, Viscount

Castlereagh, Viscount

M'Arthur, Charles

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Cave, George

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

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

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

Morpeth, Viscount

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

Courthope, G. Loyd

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Younger, George

Craik, Sir Henry

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Dalrymple, Viscount

Nield, Herbert

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Frederick Banbury and Colonel Sandys.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Fell, Arthur

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Gardner, Ernest

Randies, Sir John Scurrah

Haddock, George B.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Esslemont, George Birnie

Agnew, George William

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Fenwick, Charles

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Chance, Frederick William

Ferens, T. R.

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Findlay, Alexander

Ashley, W. W.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Flynn, James Christopher

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Clancy, John Joseph

Fuller, John Michael F.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Cleland, J. W.

Fullerton, Hugh

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth);

Clough, William

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Clynes, J. R.

Glover, Thomas

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Barker, John

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

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

Grant, Corrie

Barnard, E. B.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Grayson, Albert Victor

Barnes, G. N.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Crean, Eugene

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Gulland, John W.

Beale, W. P.

Crooks, William

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Bell, Richard

Crosfield, A. H.

Hall, Frederick

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Crossley, William J.

Halpin, J.

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

Cullinan, J.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Bennett, E. N.

Dalmeny, Lord

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

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

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

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

Boland, John

Devlin, Joseph

Harwood, George

Boulton, A. C. F.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Brace, William

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

Hayden, John Patrick

Bramsdon, T. A.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Brigg, John

Dillon, John

Heaton, John Henniker

Bright, J. A.

Donelan, Captain A.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Brodie, H. C.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

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

Brooke, Stopford

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Higham, John Sharp

Bryce, J. Annan

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Hobart, Sir Robert

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Hodge, John

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Hogan, Michael

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Byles, William Pollard

Elibank, Master of

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

Cameron, Robert

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Horniman, Emslie John

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Erskine, David C.

Hudson, Walter

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Mond, A.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Idris, T. H. W.

Mooney, J. J.

Silcock, Thomas Ball.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Murray, Capt. Hn A C. (Kincard)

Stanger, H. Y.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Myer, Horatio

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Steadman, W. C.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Strauss, B. S. (Mile End)

Jowett, F. W.

Nicholls, George

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Joyce, Michael

Nolan, Joseph

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Joynson-Hicks, William

Norman, Sir Henry

Summerbell, T.

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Sutherland, J. E.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Nuttall, Harry

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Kekewich, Sir George

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Kelley, George D.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Kettle, Thomas Michael

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Kilbride, Denis

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Thomasson, Franklin

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

O'Malley, William

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Lambert, George

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Tomkinson, James

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Partington, Oswald

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Toulmin, George

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Verney, F. W.

Lehmann, R. C.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Vivian, Henry

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Pollard, Dr.

Wadsworth, J.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

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

Walsh, Stephen

Lupton, Arnold

Pullar, Sir Robert

Walton, Joseph

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Radford, G. H.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Wardle, George J.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Watt, Henry A.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Rendall, Athelstan

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Macpherson, J. T.

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

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Whitehead, Rowland

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

M'Crae, George

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Robinson, S.

Wiles, Thomas

M'Killop, W.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

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

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Wills, Arthur Walters

M'Micking, Major G.

Roe, Sir Thomas

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

Maddison, Frederick

Rowlands, J.

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

Mallet, Charles E.

Russell, T. W.

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

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

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Winfrey, R.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Yoxall, James Henry

Marnham, F. J.

Scott, A. H. (Asht'n-und'r-Lyne)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Seaverns, J. H.

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

Menzies, Walter

Seddon, J.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Sheehy, David

Main Question again proposed.
MR. BIRRELLrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put.
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 270; Noes, 59. (Division List No. 108.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Beale, W. P.

Agnew, George William

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Beck, A. Cecil

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Barker, John

Bell, Richard

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Barnard, E. B.

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

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Barnes, G. N.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Bethell, Sir J H.(Essex, Romfrd

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N)

Boland, John

Boulton, A. C. F.

Halpin, J.

Menzies, Walter

Brace, William

Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Bramsdon, T. A.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Mond, A.

Brigg, John

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Mooney, J. J.

Bright, J. A.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Murray, Capt. Hn A C. (Kincard)

Brodie, H. C.

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

Myer, Horatio

Brooke, Stopford

Harwood, George

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Bryce, J. Annan

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hayden, John Patrick

Nicholls, George

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Nolan, Joseph

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Healy, Timothy Michael

Norman, Sir Henry

Byles, William Pollard

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Cameron, Robert

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

Nuttall, Harry

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Higham, John Sharp

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)

Chance, Frederick William

Hodge, John

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hogan, Michael

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Holland, Sir William Henry

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Clancy, John Joseph

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

O'Malley, William

Cleland, J. W.

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Clough, William

Hudson, Walter

Partington, Oswald

Clynes, J. R.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hyde, Clarendon

Philippe, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Idris, T. H. W.

Phillips', John (Longford, S.)

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Pirie, Duncan V.

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

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Pollard, Dr.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

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

Crean, Eugene

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Pullar, Sir Robert

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Radford, G. H.

Crooks, William

Jowett, F. W.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Crosfield, A. H.

Joyce, Michael

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Crossley, William J.

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Cullinan, J.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Rendall, Athelstan

Dalmeny, Lord

Kekewich, Sir George

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Kelley, George D.

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

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Ridsdale, E. A.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Kilbride, Denis

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Devlin, Joseph

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Robinson, S.

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

Lambert, George

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Donelan, Captain A.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E)

Rowlands, J.

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Lehmann, R. C.

Russell, T. W.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Levy, Sir Maurice

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lewis, John Herbert

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

Elibank, Master of

Lupton, Arnold

Seaverns, J. H.

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Seddon, J.

Erskine, David C.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Seely, Colonel

Esslemont, George Birnie

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Sheehy, David

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Fenwick Charles

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Ferens, T. R.

Macpherson, J. T.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Findlay, Alexander

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Stanger, H. Y.

Flynn, James Christopher

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Crae, George

Steadman, W. C.

Fullerton, Hugh

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

M'Killop, W.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Glover, Thomas

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

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

M'Micking, Major G.

Summerbell, T.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Maddison, Frederick

Sutherland, J. E.

Grant, Corrie

Mallet, Charles E.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Grayson, Albert Victor

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Gulland, John W.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Marnham, F. J.

Thomasson, Franklin

Hall, Frederick

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

1168

1169

Tomkinson, James

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Watt, Henry A.

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Toulmin, George

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

Trevelyan Charles Philips

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Verney, F. W.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Winfrey, R.

Vivian, Henry

Whitehead, Rowland

Yoxall, James Henry

Wadsworth, J.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

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

Walsh, Stephen

Wiles, Thomas

Walton, Joseph

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Wardle, George J.

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

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn Sir Alex. F

Gordon, J.

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Haddock, George B.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Balcarres, Lord

Hamilton, Marquess of

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Helmsley, Viscount

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Houston, Robert Paterson

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Joynson-Hicks, William

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kerry, Earl of

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

Cave, George

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Thornton, Percy M.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

Valentia, Viscount

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

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

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Courthope, G. Loyd

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

Craik, Sir Henry

M'Arthur, Charles

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

Dalrymple, Viscount

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Young, Samuel

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Morpeth, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Charles Craig and Mr. Ashley.

Fell, Arthur

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Gardner, Ernest

Nield, Herbert

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to University Education in Ireland, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—(a) of the remuneration of the Secretary to the Commissioners, and of any persons appointed or employed by them, and of any expenses incurred by the Commissioners in the execution of such Act; and (b) of grants for the purposes of either of the new Universities, or of the constituent colleges of the new University at Dublin, or of the governing bodies thereof."
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

SHETLAND MAIL SERVICE.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Contract dated 6th day of December, 1907, between the Postmaster-General and the North of Scotland and Orkney and Shetland
1170
Steam Navigation Company for the conveyance of Mails between Aberdeen and the Shetland Islands (printed in Parliamentary Paper, No. 41, of Session 1908), be approved."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
MR. MOONEYsaid that before the House decided to approve this contract he would like some information with regard to it. He noticed from the Treasury Minute that the provisions of the contract in general were in the ordinary form of Post Office contracts, but the contract itself provided for the use of the contractors of certain piers. He wished to know whether those piers were in private hands or were the property of the Government. If they were the property of the Government, were the contractors to pay rent to the Government for them? He asked this question, because he noticed the hon. Gentleman took powers to terminate this contract by a six months notice. He wished to know whether the Government could take away the piers the user of which had been in the contractors, and, if so, whether they were going to follow

1171
the precedent of Queenstown Harbour where no notice whatever was given. He also wished to know whether there was any difference between this contract and that entered into between the Government and the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid the contract was a perfectly simple matter, and had really no reference to the question of piers which the hon. Member wished to raise. Under the existing arrangement £3,600 a year it appeared was paid for certain postal services in these remote islands. It was very desirable that there should be an increased service in the herring season, and that had been now arranged for. It would be of very great use to all those engaged in what was practically their only paying industry, and for that increased service the extra amount per annum was very small. It seemed to him that the Postmaster-General and the Treasury had made a very excellent arrangement, and he suggested that this was one of the matters which might be allowed to pass without very much discussion. This was a very desirable thing to do, and it had been done at very cheap cost.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,)said that, as far as he had been able to ascertain, none of these piers were under the control of the Government, and the question of the hon. Member for Newry, therefore, did not arise in this case. With regard to what had been said by the hon. Member for the West Derby division, he thought the Government had made an excellent bargain, and perhaps even better than it appeared on paper, because they had a very small sum of money to pay for better communication between the mainland and the islands.
MR. ASHLEYsaid the hon. Gentleman was no doubt right in saying that they had made an excellent bargain in the way of getting good value for their money, but he had not pointed out whether the extra expenditure was justified because there were more letters passing between
1172
these islands and the North of Scotland than there were some years ago. If it could not be shown that the number of inhabitants of these islands had increased and that trade had increased so that it was necessary to have increased facilities, and if it was simply that the inhabitants might have easier means of communication with the mainland, then he did not see why they should pay this amount.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,)said the whole matter had been very carefully gone into. A great increase of correspondence had taken place in the last few years, and therefore these islands were entitled to improved communication. He was sure they had made a very good bargain.

ALDERNEY MAIL SERVICE.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Contract, dated the 28th day of September, 1907, between the Postmaster-General and the Alderney Steam Packet Company, Limited, for the conveyance of Mails between Alderney and Guernsey, Alderney and Cherbourg, and other places at which the Company's Mail-ships call (printed in Parliamentary Paper, No. 23, of Session 1908), be approved."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
MR. MOONEYasked whether the piers at any of the places named in the Resolution were under the control of the Government, and if so, what charges they were making for the use of these piers. If a charge was being made, was it made by way of rent, was it so much per trip, or was it payment on the steamer's tonnage?
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDthought the contract disclosed a most remarkable state of affairs. It showed that the Treasury, which he presumed was a body with no conscience, had availed itself of a certain expansion of trade, and, taking advantage of a poor little steamboat company, had succeeded—he would not use the word "bullying," if that was

1173
not Parliamentary—but had insisted upon its making a very much worse bargain than it had hitherto had. The position of the matter seemed to have been this. A bargain was made for carrying mails between the Channel Islands. It was an inter-island service, and the bargain was on the footing that each packet of mails was paid for. At the time the bargain was made a very small sum per annum accrued to the steamboat company in respect to the carrying of the mails, but the business increased, people taking to writing letters to an extent which had not been dreamed of, with the result that a very large amount indeed—an increase from £400 to no less than £1,086 a year—was paid to the company, on the existing basis. What did the Treasury do? Immediately they found this out they said to this little steamboat company: "We are not going to send any more mails by you; you are getting too much. You cannot take the mails at this rate." The result was that this company, which was a very small affair, and to whom the loss of this mail service would be a very serious matter indeed, were practically forced to come to an agreement under which they had lost the profits they were getting, and were now only going to receive £600 a year for taking the mails whatever size they might be. Whilst they could congratulate the Treasury and the Postmaster-General on having made an exceedingly beneficial bargain from their point of view, and from the point of view of the taxpayer, the whole transaction, he ventured to think, did not appear quite satisfactory to those who would like to see a service like that of the Post Office carried out with reasonable regard to the interests of those who had to serve it on a certain basis and at a certain rate of pay.
MR. HOBHOUSEthought he could dispose in a sentence of the suggestion of sweating against the Treasury, which had been made by the hon. Member who had just spoken, in reference to this company. If the hon. Member would study the Treasury Minute he would see that the contract was entered into without there being any competing line, and consequently the company had a monopoly. Therefore
1174
they could charge the Treasury almost any sum to which the Treasury would yield. They had in these circumstances agreed to the payment of £600 a year, and that sum, although a reduction on what was paid up to 31st March, 1907, was a slight increase upon what was paid in previous years. When a company accepted payment in that way and without any trouble, he thought it might be concluded that they were quite satisfied. With regard to the point which had been raised by the hon. Member for Newry, he had not been able to go closely into the question, as he did not expect it to be put to him; but so far as he had been able to ascertain, there were no piers for which the Government were paid rent. Therefore he did not think the question that the hon. Member had in his mind arose.
MR. MOONEYsaid the question he asked was whether any of the piers to which mail packets went were under the control of the Government, and whether in the harbours they had the free use of the the piers.
MR. HOBHOUSEsaid that as far as he could ascertain these piers were private property, and not the property of the Government.
MR. JOHN WARDsaid he should not have risen but for the remarkable speech of the hon. Member for the West Derby division. He had been recently in one or two elections, and in his locker he had a leaflet which, after calling attention to the promises of the Liberal Government in regard to economy and reduction of expenditure, went on to state the reasons why the electors should not vote any longer for a Liberal Government. One reason was that expenditure had been increased during their term of office. That was a very desirable subject to discuss at elections, unquestionably; but let them imagine a leading member of the party who circulated a statement of this description calling attention to an increase of the expenditure of different Departments of the Government, standing up in his place and declaring, when the Government had succeeded in making a good bargain with a steam packet company, or any other company with

1175
which it did business, that they should be termed sweaters.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: I did not use the word "sweaters."
MR. JOHN WARDsaid that the hon. Gentleman had deplored that the Government insisted on the services of the country being conducted with greater economy than his own friends were able to exercise when in power. As the increase of expenditure under a Liberal Administration had formed such a feature at recent elections, he thought it well to call attention to the utterly contradictory position of the hon. Member for the West Derby division of Liverpool.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the contract contained this clause—
"In pursuance of the provisions contained in Statute 22, George III., cap. 45, no Member of the House of Commons shall be admitted to any share or part of this agreement or any benefit to arise therefrom contrary to the true intent and meaning of the said statute."
He could find no similar clause in the West Indian Colonial Mail Service con tract, and on the face of it it seemed rather extraordinary that it should be necessary to put it in one and not in the other. He would like to know what the explanation was. If it was in one it should be in the other, unless there happened to be some Member of Parliament interested in it.
MR. HOBHOUSEsaid he was responsible to the House for the presentation of this contract. When they came to the next contract he would be perfectly willing to explain why the clause was omitted.

WEST INDIAN INTER-COLONIAL MAIL SERVICE.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Contract, dated the 29th day of August, 1907, between the Crown Agents for the Colonies and the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company for the conveyance of Mails between certain Colonies in the West Indies for a period of ten years (printed in Parliamentary Paper, No. 24, of Session 1908), be apdroved."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid this contract was of a very much more important character than either of the two they hid been discussing, not merely from the point of view of the amount of money involved, but also from the point of view of the particular traffic contemplated. There had hitherto been a contract, liable to be terminated at any time on three months notice, whereby the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company had to provide a fortnightly service between certain islands, and a four-weekly service between certain others. They undertook that service for the very moderate amount of £17,500 a year. He had during the last few months had the advantage of visiting some of these islands, and of experiencing some of the inconveniences met with by travellers, who had very great difficulty in getting from one island to the other. The whole trade of these islands depended on an efficient inter-island service. It was very noticeable, in Jamaica particularly, that the tendency was to get more nearly allied commercially, and he might almost say politically, with the United States, and there were considerable sections, in each of the islands, of people who honestly held that their interests would be better served by their being ceded to the United States. The black population were, curiously enough, absolutely loyal to the British Crown. It was the white traders who found their interests more in accord with those of the United States. Anything which could be done to give better inter-island facilities—transport and communication—both for goods and passengers, was worth far more to the permanent interests of these islands than the paltry two or three thousand pounds a year which was now proposed to be given. The £17,500 which used to be paid was only to be increased to £25,000 a year, which was a small subsidy, because steamboat services were exceedingly costly to carry on. He had no personal interest of any sort in the Packet Company, but he was exceedingly relieved to find that so desirable an inter-island service could be procured for such a reasonable amount, and when he found that in addition to giving this extremely desirable additional service, of which the islands were so badly in need, it was stipulated that two steamers should be built at an approximate cost of £100,000 and put upon the

1177
service, he thought the Treasury and the Postmaster had made very excellent arrangements. In Clause 4 of the contract he noticed that the contractors undertook not to increase materially the existing rates of freight and passage money without three months notice being given. He would like to know whether the Treasury had made any arrangements under which they could enforce that clause in respect for instance to through rates, because the passage money and rate of goods from one particular island to another was of very little importance. What really required to be protected was through rates, say from the United Kingdom to one or other of these islands, which would require at some point trans-shipment and the use of this particular service. Possibly there were one or two Members interested in this particular company, but he thought as he had had recent experience of the matter and had taken the trouble to read the contract, it might be useful for him, at all events, to express his own satisfaction at this very excellent arrangement.
MR. J. M. ROBERTSONsaid it was very edifying to note that the right hon. Member, who was usually such a vigilant guardian of the public purse, adopted an entirely opposite rôle when something was going on in the nature of protection. As far as he could make out this subsidy was a purely protectionist measure, or at least had, the effect of a protectionist measure, and the hon. Member's idea was that the object was to encourage trade between these Colonies—and, he supposed, incidentally between them and the Mother Country—as a process counteracting the tendency they might have to trade with the United States. He gathered that the trade of those Colonies with the United States tended to increase, and that consequently this country would do well to foster the trade between them and the Mother Country. This was an illustration of the tendency of such subsidies to go on increasing. The present subsidy had been greatly raised, and there was no security against being called upon to enter into contracts for still larger subsidies. The only security they had was a promise that the contractors would not raise their rates without three months notice, which was a very broad hint that they were likely to
1178
raise their rates. The whole arrangement was financially unsound and alien to the commercial and fiscal traditions of this country. This appeared to him to be an expenditure in the interests of the islands concerned and not in the interests of the trade of the Mother Country. If those islands had a profitable trade they should be capable of running it without a subsidy. The paying of a subsidy always meant they were getting comparatively little value for their money. He was at a loss to see why the revenues of the Mother Country should be expended in any such fashion. He would like to hear from the Minister in charge any excuse for this expenditure compatible with the general assertion of free trade principles. It seemed to him to be an expenditure of a purely protectionist kind. It was not on those lines that the maritime commerce of this country had been built up, and he saw in the proposal a departure from their principles which the Government should be called upon to justify.
MR. ASHLEYreminded the hon. Member in charge of this Resolution that he promised on the last contract to state fully and fairly the reason why the clause providing that no Member of the House of Commons should gain any advantage from these contracts had been excluded. This contract was a much more important one, and that was all the more reason why such a safeguard should be inserted.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the subsidy under this contract was to be increased from £17,500 to £25,000 a year, and that was a very large increase. He did not agree with the argument of the hon. Member for Tyneside that a subsidy ought not to be granted because it was protectionist in its nature. That did not concern him, because if the contract was good and made on economical lines it did not matter whether it was protectionist or not. They had, however, to see that the contract was a proper one. No valid reason had been given for such a large increase. The only argument in support of this increase was that the company undertook to construct two new steamers for this service at a cost of £100,000. The companies were going to get the benefit of those steamers for this service, and he presumed they would not be constructed unless they were required

1179
for business purposes. He knew something about this company. They had a number of old-fashioned inefficient vessels and this seemed to be an opportunity for them to construct new and more efficient boats. Clause 4 of the contract provided that in the event of any material increase being made in the freights or the passage money three months notice must be given, and another clause laid down that the contract was to remain in force for ten years. Apparently, by giving three months notice they could do as they liked, because as the contract had ten years to run there was no control whatever over the company, and therefore Clause 4 was absolutely illusory. It seemed to him that this had simply been put in as a blind. Then came the question of the omission of the clause relating to Members of Parliament not taking any advantage under a contract made with the Government. It was only by chance that he found the existence of that clause. It seemed to him very extraordinary that they had three contracts brought forward on the same day dealing with three different steamship companies, and whilst in two of them this clause was inserted it had been omitted from the third. It might be argued that it was not necessary to put in a clause to that effect in this contract because the company to which the contract referred was the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, which was authorised under the Limited Liability Acts. He would like to know if the defence was going to be that where a Member of Parliament was a director or a shareholder in a limited liability company he was allowed to reap an advantage to which he was not entitled if he happened to be a partner in a private firm. It seemed to him that this raised an extremely important question, to which he hoped they would receive a satisfactory answer.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONhoped the arguments of the hon. Member for Tyneside would not have much weight with the Government. The Report which had been made on this question showed that an increase in the facilities of communication between these islands was very desirable. The words of the Report were to the effect that an increase in the facilities for communication between the islands was a matter of life or death to the West Indians. As to the
1180
new steamers he would like to know whether those boats had been actually laid down or not, and if they had not been taken in hand were they going to be built at once.
MR. MARKHAMsaid he wished to know from the Solicitor-General the exact position of a Member of Parliament who was a director in the company concerned in this particular contract. Only last week he was in communication with a Government Department in regard to a tender for the supply of coal, and he was informed that as the particular colliery was his own property and not the property of a limited liability company he could not make a contract with the Government; but if it had happened to belong to a limited company in which he was a shareholder he would have been entitled to make a contract with the Government. He did not see the force of that argument. In innumerable cases Members of the House of Commons were owners in South Wales collieries which supplied coal to the Admiralty, and other hon. Members were connected with railways and other commercial enterprises. He would like the Solicitor-General to tell the House whether a Member of Parliament who happened to be the sole proprietor of a concern which was not a limited company was prevented from making a contract with the Government, and whether a Member of Parliament who was a director of a company acting under Charter and which was not a limited company was entitled to contract with His Majesty's Government.
MR. HOBHOUSEsaid that up till the year 1905 the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company for something like sixty years had maintained a fortnightly service to the West Indies. In 1905 that contract terminated and a new one was signed in June of that year. The cost had previously been £84,500 a year, of which the Colonies contributed £24,600, and a further sum of about £10,000 was recovered from foreign countries, leaving a net charge on the Exchequer of £50,000 per annum. In 1906 the Royal Mail Company found they were running the service at a loss, and they threatened to withdraw altogether what was called the branch line service. The Government found themselves in the dilemma that they had either to agree to a

1181
subsidy or see the inter-Colonial communication disappear altogether. He confessed that if he had been in his present position at that time he would not have had a single moment's hesitation as to which course he would adopt. The Government, as a matter of fact, chose the alternative of giving the contractor a subsidy of £17,500, of which the United Kingdom gave £8,750 and the Colonies contributed a like sum. That was for a line not across the Atlantic, as provided for by the old contract, but for the branch service between Barbadoes and the other Colonies. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London had asked why they were paying £5,000 or £6,000 a year more than in 1906. The answer was very simple. The arrangement under which a subsidy of £17,500 was paid, of which the Colonies contributed one-half, only gave a fortnightly service to the southern islands, and a monthly service to the northern islands, and this was not at all a satisfactory state of affairs to the islands themselves. There were frequent delays in the service, and very great complaints on the part of the Colonies. The result of that arrangement was that Barbadoes withdrew altogether from the contract and stopped her contribution to the Colonial subsidy. Practically the contract terminated. In 1907, therefore, the same dilemma arose. They were bound to grant a subsidy to that line or leave the islands without any communication with the outer world. Again there could be no doubt or hesitation as to which of these two alternatives they had to accept, and a contract was arranged in terms which the House has now before it—a contract which he thought both commercially and from every other point of view redounded to the sagacity of the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and to the acumen of the Treasury generally. What were the terms of that contract? For a subsidy of £25,000, of which the United Kingdom contributed £12,500 and the Colonies a like sum, they got a fortnightly service for both the northern and the southern islands instead of a monthly service to the northern islands. But they got a great deal more than that. They also got two steamers instead of one, and a guaranteed connection four times out of
1182
five with the Transatlantic service Two new steamers were to be constructed. It might be that on a contract assured for ten years the company found it advantageous in every sense of the word to lay down two new steamers. The company were ready to lay down these steamers the moment the House approved of the contract. They therefore got assured communication between the islands themselves inter-Colonially, and between the islands and the outside world. He thought the Treasury might fairly be congratulated on having made a contract which gave the Colonies and ourselves an assured means of communication. That was the purely commercial side of the question, but it seemed to him that it was advantageously conducted from the point of view of the Colonies. This country had practically got all that it had up to 1905, and had saved £27,000 under the new arrangement, after allowing for the payments by the Post Office for Transatlantic mails. Commerce, if he might venture to say so, was not the last word in an arrangement of this sort. There were bonds and obligations, historical and traditional, which had to be considered in this relation. The West Indian Colonies were one of the oldest dependencies and possessions of this country. They were linked to us in their good times, and we reaped considerable advantage from that association with them, and, putting it on no other ground than that which he had stated, he thought we should be prepared to stand by them in the more evil times that had fallen upon them now. He went further than that and said that the orthodox free trader was in no way endangered by adhering to this contract. He had no intention of going into the question of free trade on a subject of this sort, but he did say quite clearly that the contract in no way infringed or impinged upon the orthodox free trade maxim that trade should be allowed to flow in its natural channels, and it in no way improperly fostered the trade of the West Indian Colonies. Mention had been made of the West Indian Commission of 1896. That Report laid it down that it was the imperative duty of this country to keep open the means of communication between this country and the West Indian Colonies, and the present Government

1183
had no need of being ashamed of having accepted that obligation and given a subsidy to keep open postal communications. The Government had laid down no regulations as to the carrying of cargo, but they said that if there was any alteration there should be three months notice.
AN HON. MEMBER asked the hon. Gentleman if he could explain what would happen after the three months notice had been given. Had the Government any option at all, or was the rate necessarily raised?
MR. HOBHOUSEsaid he did not think there was any necessity to anticipate that the rate would be raised. At all events, if that case did occur there would be ample notice to shippers and others concerned. There was another consideration which he thought ought to weigh with the House. He had said that the West Indian Islands had fallen upon evil times. There were distinct signs that the industries in that part of the world were reviving, and he thought they were justified in giving these reviving industries opportunities for taking advantage of a line of steamers and securing that they should not be hindered in their renaissance by the want of snipping facilities. He reminded the House that in times past the Government of this country had had to come to the assistance of these Colonies with various grants-in-aid. These grants-in-aid had largely diminished, and they were a diminishing quantity, though they had not altogether disappeared. But supposing that they did not subsidise this line of steamers as they had done for postal purposes they would actually have had to increase these other subsidies to a far greater extent than they had done under this contract. Therefore, a good bargain had been concluded from the point of view of economy, and they had done a wise thing from the point of view of keeping up the communication which was essential in small and isolated communities of this sort with the outside world. Whether from the commercial or from the civilised and historical point of view, he ventured to say that there was no fault to be found with this contract.
SIR F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question.
MR. HOBHOUSE: The Solicitor-General will reply.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir S. EVANS,)said that the hon. Baronet had called attention to a clause in two of the mail contracts referred to—which had reference to a provision in an Act of 1782 forbidding Members of Parliament from entering into Government contracts, and imposing disabilities and penalties upon Members of Parliament entering into such contracts—and had asked why such a clause was omitted from the Royal Mail contract. His answer was that probably the clauses referred to wore copied from old forms of contract entered into with private individuals; but whether that was so or not, such a clause was quite unnecessary and useless in a contract with an incorporated company like the Royal Mail Company, which had existed as a corporate company for sixty or seventy years. The Act of 1782 contained an express provision in one of its sections (Section 3) that nothing in the Act contained should affect or apply to any incorporated trading company, like the Royal Mail Company. The House was well aware that whereas it was regarded as against public policy that a Member of Parliament should be directly interested in a Government contract, it had long been settled that there was no objection to a Member of the House being a shareholder in a company which entered into such contracts, and which had a separate legal existence, and was a separate legal entity. This was a sound distinction; it was generally approved of; and if it were otherwise, the result would be that no Member of this House could invest or be a shareholder in concerns like large railway or shipping or industrial companies which might have cont acts either large or small with any Government Department.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid that the customary clause with reference to a Member of Parliament taking a contract with the Government appeared in two of the contracts which had been discussed. That clause was, in his opinion, on the most favourable

1185
explanation, mischievous surplusage. In the case of the third contract it was omitted altogether. Everyone would see that, whether the clause was inserted or not, it made no difference to the operation of the Act. It was, however, unfortunate that in a case where an hon. Member was chairman of the company concerned the clause should not make its appearance, and that a most unfortunate error in drafting should be corrected for the first time in this particular case. There remained attaching to any hon. Member all the vague terrors and pitfalls which might arise out of his giving a vote in accordance with his personal interest, and therefore in conflict with the rules and orders which made it dangerous for him to give a vote. He could congratulate the Government upon neither their draftsmanship nor their choice of the occasion to review the original defects in the contracts.

PUBLIC OFFICES SITES (EXTENSION) [EXPENSES] REPORT.
Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to authorise 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."
Resolution read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he did not wish to put the House to the trouble of a division over this Resolution, but he would like to have some explanation as to whether more than £600,000 was going to be expended. He understood that £600,000 was going to be provided out of the old Sinking Fund, which he thought was a mistake; but he would like some assurance that if they consented to the limit of £600,000 the Government would give notice of their intention to spend, more than that if it were found necessary.
MR. HOBHOUSEsaid there was no intention of going beyond the sum specified.
LORD BALCARRESsaid he had never been able to get a satisfactory answer to the question how much land was required beyond the amount secured under the original Act. In 1903 the Act was passed authorising the expenditure of money for sites for Government buildings and for the erection of those buildings on those sites. A great number of sites had been acquired under that Act five years ago, but not those in Great George Street for the extension of the present buildings. He had asked on two different occasions how much land remained unacquired for the purpose of that extension, but had not been able to get an answer.
MR. J. A. PEASEsaid that his right hon. friend the First Commissioner of Works had asked him if this Resolution came up to-night to express his regret that he could not be present in the House owing to engagement on other official duties elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman was present on the previous day when this matter was discussed in Committee and he had answered all the questions then raised. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] He hoped the House would now allow the Report Stage of the Resolution to be taken.
MR. ASHLEYsaid that the explanation made matters worse. If the First Commissioner of Works had other official duties to perform, of course he must perform them. But he complained that the Government should take their Resolution at a time when they themselves admitted that the First Commissioner of Works could not be present. Several important questions had been put to the Government with reference to the sites for the public offices and the sums of money which had been spent on them; but no answer had been given to those questions. It was hardly fair to the House to leave them without a clear and relevant answer to these questions.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he had been one of those who opposed

1187
the passing of the Public Sites Bill, to which the Report referred. As he understood, the Bill and this Resolution, had to do with the completion of the very important and uniform public buildings which were calculated vastly to improve the facilities for the public service, as well as to form a great improvement in an important portion of London. He had opposed the Bill because he thought that a considerable amount of money might have been saved by putting the public offices on another site. That, however, was not the point now. During the former discussion some confusion arose as to the provision and expenditure of the money. The First Commissioner of Works explained that a considerable portion of the money for the whole of the improvements had already been provided for, and therefore that did not need to be raised by this particular Resolution. In the course of the discussion, the right hon. Gentleman was asked what was the estimate of the total cost, but he was rot able to give that with certainty. Then he was asked what was the amount of total cost already provided for in other financial Resolutions, and which would not be required to be raised by this financial Resolution. The House got no definite reply. Now a third point arose: what was the total area of land which would be required on which to build the public offices? A certain portion of the site still required to be bought, including that occupied by the Institute of Civil Engineers, which beautiful new building was to be pulled down. What he and his friends wanted was a general idea of the number of square yards which would be occupied by the new building, the number of square yards already bought and paid for, and the number still to be acquired. If a considerable portion of the land necessary had still to be bought and arbitrated upon, then the Estimates laid before the House might be very considerably increased in amount. He also wanted to know whether the complete plans had been actually drawn, and an estimate made of the total cost, and whether they were going to spend on the buildings on these sites at a rate of £30 or £35 per square yard. Those were points which they
1188
did not get elucidated on the last occasion. He very much regretted in the interest of public business that the First Commissioner of Works was not present, for he thought the House was entitled to the information asked for before they passed an important Resolution of this kind.
And, it being a quarter-past Eight of the Clock, Further Proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

HOUSING OF WORKPEOPLE.
MR. MADDISON*MR. MADDISON (Burnley), in moving "That this House considers that immediate steps should be taken to secure the provision of proper sanitary housing accommodation for workpeople employed upon works of construction and in other occupations of a temporary character," said that the Trade Union Group with which he was associated considered they were fortunate in the Minister to whom they had to make this appeal. The rank and file welcomed nothing so much as the inclusion of his right hon. friend in the Cabinet. It gave to the Cabinet a labour representation which had been of enormous advantage, not only to the right hon. Gentleman's own class, but to the nation at large, and the party with which he was associated thought there was considerable advantage in making this practical but immensely important appeal to the President of the Local Government Board. The grievance he brought to the attention of the House was a real one, but he wanted to make it perfectly clear that no wholesale charges were being brought against contractors and employers. Many employers and contractors had endeavoured to do their duty and fulfil their obligations in this respect. He did not suggest that navvies should live in marble halls, but he did claim that this rough but extremely valuable class of our fellow-countrymen should have something like the minimum of decency. There were between 100,000 and 200,000 of these people at the call of the nation for the execution of public work of the greatest importance, and therefore they were a class who had some claim to the

1189
attention of Parliament. His Motion was also framed to include people engaged in temporary occupations of another kind; such, for instance, as the hop-pickers, whose condition certainly ought to be remedied. Dr. Farrar, who was asked to investigate the conditions under which the hop-pickers worked, had furnished a most valuable Report, in which he gave some details which one would have liked to have been impossible. Of course, hop-picking differed from other works such as those of great public construction, and he did not expect that elaborate provision should be made for the short time they were engaged, but some provision ought to be made. Dr. Farrar reported that on one farm the pickers had to get water in a field from an open tank which was also used by cattle. On another farm the hop-pickers complained of the musty flavour of the water supplied to them, and upon investigation it was found that the water was conveyed in a barrel that had for many years been used for hog-wash. Dr. Farrar made other statements with regard to sanitary arrangements which he would not now go into, but they showed a most disgraceful state of things, that no discrimination was made between the sexes, and the doctor finally concluded by stating that nobody who could not provide decently for them should bring people to their fields. The Motion, however, mainly referred to navvies and others engaged on railways and other large works, largely carried on in the country districts where ordinary accommodation could not be obtained. He would not labor this point, as he was fortunate enough to have as a seconder of his Motion the hon. Member for Stoke, who zealously served the navvies of this country. They would also have a few words from the hon. Member for Bath, who had been engaged in mission work among the navvies and whose experience corresponded very largely with that of the hon. Member for Stoke. In the Report of Dr. Farrar upon the work of the Brook-lands motor track there were some appalling statements. It was not a long job, but it was long enough to make it obligatory on the contractor to provide reasonable housing accommodation for the men employed. Dr. Farrar found no provision whatever made by the
1190
contractors for the housing accommodation of the men they employed. The contractor knew the number of men he was going to employ and how long the work would take, and he provided machinery and everything else required, and although there was no housing accommodation in the neighbourhood it never struck him that he should provide for the human factors, without which the work could not be carried out. Dr. Farrar in his Report said that men working on the night-shift resorted after work to the public-house where they had been to wash down their breakfasts, after which they laid down in the open to rest. If the weather happened to be cold they half-stupefied themselves with beer before taking their rest. These men had not even a hole dug in which they might lay their heads; and they had to stupefy themselves with drink, a remedy, he was bound to say, many would resort to without much encouragement before they went to rest. The Committee visited several public-houses, which they found so full as barely to afford standing room, and the navvies in those houses complained bitterly of the failure of the contractors to find accommodation for them. Dr. Farrar went into the statement that the navvies did not want accommodation and all the rest of it, and came to the conclusion that the genuine navvy, in large numbers, was a victim to these conditions. After the public-houses were closed, he found 6 men sleeping in a straw yard, 17 in a disused cowshed on the bare floor, a number sleeping round a coffee stall, and 300 asleep in a dale. He and those with whom he was associated were not extremists when they said this sort of thing must be stopped. That was the object of the Motion to-night. This was not a new question, because in 1846, when railways were being introduced into this country, a Select Committee sat to inquire into this very matter, and though they confined themselves to the question of railways, their recommendations applied to all works of a similar kind. One recommendation was as follows—
"Your Committee is of opinion that previous to the collection of a body of these workpeople at any spot sufficient lodging should be ascertained to exist. When the neighbourhood cannot adequately supply it then the company should be required to provide it."
Again they said—
"Your Committee adverts with pleasure to the evidence they have received from gentlemen largely engaged in executing public works to show that comfortable arrangements for lodging the men are directly and indirectly amply remunerative for the additional expense they may at first entail."
He believed they could always square economies with morals. As Adam Smith taught fifty years ago, the way to get the best work out of people was to treat them well. A good many people who tried to upset Adam Smith's conclusion were unaware that he had a good deal of sentiment in his economy. The recommendations of the 1846 Committee awaited adoption. That was rather typical of the House. He might say to the President of the Local Government Board: "Now there is your mandate; get about the business and do what this Select Committee asked Parliament to do sixty years ago." If that were done, they would be absolutely satisfied. He was not one of those who complained of reasonable delay. He did not want the House to race. He had a great belief in his country, but he did not think it was strong enough to stand the House always in the division lobby, where their enthusiasm was tremendous. Already there was one case, and there might be more, where this obligation had been placed upon contractors in a public Bill. The Derwent Valley Water Act, 1899, contained the provision. The hon. Member who represented that district informed him that the administration of the Act had largely broken down, but it was not the fault of the Act. He thought at first there was a similar provision in the Port of London Bill, but, on reading the clause, he found there was an ugly little word "at" instead of "on," and he hoped the hon. Members on the Committee would see that was made "at or on." They wanted the local authorities charged with the duty of seeing that all contractors for works in their area made better provision for the housing of the men employed on those works. There were various things, a register, and other items of machinery, which might be suggested, but he did not suggest them. He told the President of the Local Government Board what they wanted, and it was his duty
1192
to see that it was carried out. They paid him a salary and did not grudge it, but they paid it him to do some of their thinking for them. If legislation was needed, then he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would pass legislation. He did not ask him to do so unless it was necessary, because he believed all unnecessary laws on the Statute book were a nuisance and even a tyranny; but, if this could not be done without legislation, then they asked the right hon. Gentleman to do it with legislation. The Motion, which he had the pleasure of moving, merely sought to impose a reasonable obligation upon all employers in the interests of a very deserving class and of the good of the general community.
MR. JOHN WARDsaid he had the greatest possible pleasure in seconding the Motion, for, as the officer for a number of years of the society which represented this particular class of workmen, he had been cognisant of many unfortunate circumstances, such as those already described by the hon. Member for Burnley. He was, therefore, delighted to have this opportunity of ventilating this grievance of, he should think, the most hard-working body of men in the country, and possibly one of the most useful body of workmen. The subject was not a new one, because, as the hon. Member for Burnley had pointed out, it was before the House sixty years ago. Unfortunately, despite the fact that the House sixty years ago had the matter before it, absolutely nothing had been done, so far as legislation was concerned, to take the recommendations of the Committee into consideration or to improve the position of the men in any single iota. It was true that in some circumstances there were certain regulations as to the construction of buildings, and so on, and that the general advance in the sanitary laws of the country had assisted the men in getting better accommodation; but the unfortunate part of the business was that the greater proportion of great public works, employing enormous bodies of men nine, ten, or twelve years, were usually commenced in spots where there were no local bye-laws, or only bye-laws of a very mediaeval type, and in districts where there was not the jurisdiction

1193
and power to decide on housing accommodation that there was in towns. He would be able to show many cases where the conditions were quite as bad as anything described in the Report of Dr. Farrar. It would not, however, be necessary to make many quotations, because his right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board, he knew, was personally interested in the welfare of this class of men, and had been so interested for a number of years, long before he (Mr. Ward) entered the House, and possibly long before the right hon. Gentleman himself imagined he was going to hold the exalted position he now filled. He, therefore, felt it would only be necessary to state the position exactly, and to show how utterly impossible it was to hope for any improvement under present arrangements, and how necessary it was for definite action on the part of his Department. If he only showed this, he thought they would have the right hon. Gentleman's assistance in obtaining some amelioration of a definite character. The hon. Member for Burnley was mistaken in imagining that the Committee of 1846 was appointed to consider no other than railway works. It was appointed to take into consideration not merely the question of the condition of labourers employed in the construction of railways, but also on public works in general. Perhaps it would be as well for him to read the terms of reference to the Committee. The Committee was appointed on 30th April, 1846, by Sir R. Peel's Administration, and the terms of reference were:—
"To inquire into the condition of the labourers employed in the construction of railways and other public works and into the remedies which may be calculated to lessen the peculiar evils of that condition."
The evidence in the Report clearly showed that sixty years ago they took great care in securing information as to the condition of these men in all parts of the country, on all kinds of works of public utility, and unquestionably the evidence in the Report showed a truly appalling and deplorable state of affairs. So bad was it that the Committee made a Report of a very drastic description. They in that House imagined that in discussing industrial subjects they took a more moral and
1194
higher view of the claims for industrial reform than people used to in earlier times. He used to think that the Manchester school of politics was not superior to £ s. d. and that purely materialistic motives prompted them in their decisions, but it was only necessary to read this Report to see that in dealing with subjects of this description sixty years ago they took quite as high a moral view as people did to-day, if not higher. One of the drastic recommendations he would like to read to the House. The whole subject was thoroughly discussed, and the crux of their Report was contained in the following paragraph—
"Your Committee beg to suggest that every railway company, before employing more than a small number of labourers together in the construction of any part of their work, should be required to notify their intention to the Public Board which may be charged to the general supervision of railways and to state the number of men likely to be employed thereon. A competent officer should then be required by the Board to proceed to the place named and to ascertain whether there was already adequate and decent lodging to be obtained for workpeople within reasonable distance, and to report accordingly to the Board. If it should be sufficient that then the company should be allowed at once to proceed; otherwise, not until they have provided lodgings to the satisfaction of such officer certified by him to the Board. These proceedings should be at the expense of the company, the exercise of whose powers may be made dependent upon them being taken. The inspecting officer should be required from time to time to visit the works and the lodgings and to report thereon to the Board, with power to make sanitary regulations respecting them to be observed by the Committee on approval by the Board."
So long ago as 1846 they made elaborate recommendations for the purpose of preventing this deplorable condition of affairs that had been recently brought to light by the Report of Dr. Farrar in the case of the Brooklands motor track, and one or two others which he would bring to light. But nothing had been done. He communicated with the Administration in 1892 when his right hon. friend the Member for Morpeth was Under-Secretary to the Board of Trade, and they discussed the subject in the old Westminster Hall, taking the two sides of the grievances of the workmen, one dealing with their accidents and the other with their lodging accommodation, and he was pleased

1195
to have an opportunity of thanking his right hon. friend for dealing very satisfactorily with one side of the subject. But, unfortunately, when the right hon. Gentleman and his friends were beginning to consider the advisability of tackling this subject the result of the ballot boxes at the general election was unsatisfactory, and the powers of administration were handed over to other hands. They could see by the attendance how much care or interest they were likely to take in any question of this description. If it were not for the hon. Member for Yarmouth having come in towards the latter end of his hon. friend's speech, His Majesty's official Opposition would have been entirely absent even on such an important subject as this. Nothing was done, owing to the turn of the ballot, and so the thing had gone on from time to time. He supposed in most of these things a little personal experience was more important than theoretical knowledge. He started life on public works connected with a railway. He had worked on most of the great public works from 1879 to 1890, when he was appointed an officer of his society. He had therefore had an opportunity of personally living in these huts on different public works, and even now sometimes spent his week-ends in visiting one of these public works and lodging in the huts. The form of accommodation that was usually provided was some rough wooden structure. These huts were of a very temporary character. They were easily knocked together—too easily, he was afraid—but they afforded, at any rate, some shelter. Usually about fourteen or sixteen men were stacked in a room about 12 feet by 24, and the beds were close against one another, which sometimes enabled an odd one to be got in. If it happened to be a tunnel or works where there was a night and a day shift, no sooner were the day shift out of their beds than another shift turned in, and that was the condition of affairs that prevailed on many public works, as no doubt Dr. Farrar would be able to explain to the Local Government Board. There was another system where the contractor found it to his advantage to dispense with boards, except for the roof, and the sides were made with sods
1196
cut out of the turf on the side of the railway, and that was practically all the protection one had. Many a time he had been able to lie in bed and pick mushrooms. Their organisers had reported to him three cases where similar accommodation was provided on works which were to last five or six years. Private firms were great offenders in this matter, though great improvements had been made on several works, and he wanted to give every credit to those who had made them. Just as he was going to deal out criticisms, he should be just as clear in giving praise where praise was justified. These huts were built sometimes in long streets with scarcely any sanitary accommodation. He remembered well the great navvy village at Runcorn during the construction of the Manchester Ship Canal, where all the garbage used to be thrown out in what was supposed to be the street, the space between the huts, because there was nowhere else to throw it, until the whole space became a sort of spongy mass of filth which, of course, ought to have been cleared away. The result was a diphtheria epidemic which carried off scores of the men and nearly half the children in the village, and yet nothing had been done. But they suddenly had a great improvement. The Birmingham Corporation came to the House for powers to build a great water-works, and he began to get reports from members of his society asking him to go down and see the palaces that were provided on those works. He went and found a. village of about 300 fine huts with the latest sanitary accommodation, while in all other huts he had seen erected by private contractors the whole of the men had been stacked in one room without any possible chance of individual decency or anything of the sort, and that was the general thing even to-day. The Birmingham Corporation, he believed, to the honour of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, put up cubicles so that every man had his own sleeping compartment, bedsteads were provided, and the bedclothes changed every Monday, and there was wash-house and bath accommodation. Nothing like it had ever before been attempted in navvy life. He thought that that would be a pattern to every other private firm to

1197
adopt, but he was sorry to say that in the case of private firms there was no improvement whatever upon the condition that prevailed twenty or twenty-five years ago. But Birmingham led the way in this matter, and it created quite a revolution as to the management of the village, and the result was that the Water Committee got together the best body of men that any public workers ever contracted with since he had had anything to do with public works, and the works were carried on in a way which was creditable to everybody concerned. Other public bodies had followed suit. The Swansea Corporation built a large reservoir, and had a proper system of accommodation that was a credit to them. Before the work was finished another large work began, the Swansea Dock, done by a private contractor, and the policy of the public authorities was entirely ignored. No house accommodation whatever was provided, except that some old shanties in the docks or on the ground itself, that had been given over to the rats and the seagulls for half a generation, were slightly renovated and made watertight, if not wind tight, and there some twenty or thirty families had been established. Beyond that no accommodation whatever had been provided for the influx of nearly 2,000 men. He was told that whereas the cottages for the ordinary people before the works began ranged from 3s. 6d. to 4s. a week, the navvies who had families being obliged to secure some kind of accommodation, overcrowding had taken place to an enormous extent, and 10s. a week was being paid for those same cottages, in which they could only live by crowding about one family into one room, and in some cases it was even worse than that. He had drawn the attention of some officials of the Harbour Board to the subject some time ago. No less than from 200 to 300 of those men were living under the hedges on the hillside. It had been said that the navvy did not want much inducement to drink beer, but he was not so sure that he would not have taken arsenic if he had been obliged to live under such conditions. How they could expect men to develop decent habits under circumstances of that description, he failed to see. This was a very serious matter, and it was a subject which ought
1198
to have been taken into consideration years ago. He asked the constable on the spot what became of those men, and he told him that directly the cold nights set in they crowded into the filthy cabins of the town in order to get a lodging wherever they could, and they lived there in the most filthy surroundings. Was it to be wondered at that these men were looked upon as a little below the lowest class of workmen? If they placed men under those conditions and condemned them, as the Government had done by its neglect of this question during the last sixty years, to a condition of affairs of that description they could not expect the men to be angels. Public authorities, when they did this work themselves, generally made proper provision for the men, but often the private contractor made absolutely no provision at all. They ought to take steps to force the private contractor up to the standard adopted by the public authority. His hon friend had referred to the case of the Derwent Valley Water Board. That Board had the only Act of Parliament, dealing with public works of this nature, which contained a provision compelling the employer or those undertaking the work to supply proper accommodation for the workmen. His hon. friend said someone had told him that even that Act of Parliament was inoperative, and that the Derwent Valley Water Board were not carrying out that clause. He was able to say that so far as the men employed directly by the Derwent Water Board were concerned that Board were performing their duty to the letter in regard to providing the men with proper accommodation. He had personally frequently visited the Derwent Valley Water Works, where he slept with an old friend of his in one of the huts, and it was as comfortable a little hut and as clean and perfect in every way so far as domestic comfort was concerned as any workman's house in the country. Proper sanitary arrangements were provided on those works, and there was a great recreation hall for the men, and also a library. There was also a clergyman who came to speak to the men, and he considered that that had a very important bearing on their social life. That Water Board had only erred in this way. The point he was urging was the difference

1199
in the treatment of the men in the case of public authorities, and by private contractors, and this point could not be better illustrated than in the case of the Derwent Valley Water Board. At first this Board decided to do its own work, and they employed about 800 of the best navvies in the country; they were men capable of performing any kind of work, and were a highly respectable body of men. The moment they made the habitations of these men conform to the ordinary decencies of life, they soon became much the same as other men. Unfortunately the Derwent Valley Water Board, under the influence of reactionaries, who argued that by doing their own work they were murdering private enterprise, decided by a very narrow majority that the lower part of the work should be carried out by contract. The Water Board, thinking that their model villages would be occupied by the private contractors' employees, did not dream that anyone would come and put down a miserable pigsty by the side of those decent cottages. The Board placed no compulsion on the contractor to make any provision at all for the men, and therefore that clause of the Act was a dead letter, with the result that the condition of affairs on that part of the Derwent Valley Water Works which was now being done by a private contractor, was a disgrace to the contractor, and to the county council which had allowed it to exist. He desired to convince his right hon. friend that right up to that very moment those things were continuing. The Brooklands motor track was not an isolated case, because this kind of thing occurred regularly wherever there was no compulsion in the terms of the contract. On this point he wished to read a quotation from the Sheffield Daily Telegraph of Tuesday, 12th May, 1908, dealing with this subject, to show the condition of affairs existing at the present time. That journal said—
"There were revelations of a remarkable character at yesterday's meeting of the Chapel-on-le-Frith Guardians, respecting the state of things in the Bamford and Derwent district where the Derwent Water Board have their extensive works. The Rev. F. M. Hayward, of Derwent, who presided, called attention to the excessive number of inmates and vagrants at the workhouse, and said he did not think the guardians had any idea of the extraordinary
1200
number of vagrants and. tramps accumulating in the district of Bamford and Derwent. He said he was not speaking of the Water Board but of the contractors who were carrying out various works under the Board. Although a large number of men were continually arriving in the district and engaged on the works there was no accommodation for them. Last week seven or eight Italians arrived at Bamford to do some skilled work, and not a soul in the village would take them in. These poor beggars were obliged to sleep under tarpaulin out of doors. He knew, too, that no fewer than fifty men were sleeping in one barn, a dozen in another, the same number in another, and so on, and in fact, every haystack and pipe anywhere between Bamford and Derwent was a lodging place for these men. [Sensation.] The state of things was horrible, and they might imagine the sanitary conditions of a barn where fifty men were sleeping. Something ought to be done to compel the contractors to provide accommodation for the men they employed. They were continually advertising for men, and the result was that the locality was invaded by tramps and vagrants who did not want work, and who were trying to break into people's houses. He suggested that representations be made to the Member of Parliament for the Division, asking that a Bill should be brought forward to compel contractors in such cases to provide accommodation for their workmen. The Derwent Valley Water Board had done all they could, so far as they were concerned, but the contractors did not care whether the men were accommodated or not so long as they got their work done."
That was the condition of affairs upon one of their greatest public works. He was very glad that at last they had got to the subject which he had been agitating for a long time. For the first time these men had got a spokesman in this House, and he hoped the result would be to make it impossible for this state of affairs to prevail any longer. It might be asked why was it that private firms kept on advertising for men when there were crowds of them in the locality. This was done in order to secure a fresh stream of men continually on those particular works, and unless the contractor adopted that course he would not be able to complete his works at all. The House would see how necessary it was that something should be done to improve this unfortunate condition of affairs. He hoped the President of the Local Government Board would take the matter into consideration, and devote special attention to the need of giving powers to the county councils to take action. Such powers, however, might not be effective unless the right hon. Gentleman's Department insisted on some

1201
method by which they could carry out the proposal of the Select Committee of 1846 to have an inspector occasionally visiting the works to see that proper accommodation was provided. He also suggested that as the Local Government Board drafted model clauses with reference to many other subjects in private legislation there should be a standing order of his Department requiring that when powers were sought for building great works, involving the migration of large numbers of men to given localities, a model clause should be inserted to secure suitable accommodation for the workers before such Bills were permitted to pass.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House considers that immediate steps should be taken to secure the provision of proper sanitary Housing Accommodation for Workpeople employed upon works of construction and in other occupations of a temporary character."—(Mr. Maddison.)
MR. ALBERT STANLEYsaid there was one phase of this question which had not been sufficiently dealt with by the hon. Gentleman who preceded him. He associated himself with his hon. friend the Member for Burnley in assuring the House that it was not in any captious spirit this question had been raised. A great deal had been said in regard to the housing of men engaged on temporary works. What he desired to bring before the House as clearly as he could was the condition not so much of the men but of the women and children engaged in hopping. He had been brought into touch with that aspect of the question as a member of the Staffordshire Education Committee. The attendance at the schools of children who, with their parents, had been hop-picking suffered for reasons which appeared in reports which he would read. The statements he would quote were made by gentlemen who had made a close inspection of the matter on the spot. The Report dated 12th March, 1906, by Mr. Hawkins, superintendent of the attendance officers for the Education Committee of the
1202
county of Stafford contained the following—
"The head teachers most emphatically state that the majority of children return from the hop fields in an absolutely filthy condition, and the general practice is to exclude such children from school until they have been cleasned and their clothes washed. The children are generally absent from two to three days on this account. I may add that scarlet fever broke out in the Quarry Bank district shortly after the return of the hop-pickers and has not yet entirely disappeared. The medical officer of health is of opinion that the disease was in all probability imported from the hop fields."
In schedules appended to the Report Mr. Hawkins gave the names of the children and the ailments from which they were suffering on their return from hopping. It was an unsavoury matter and he did not propose to go into all the details. The ailments included fever, diphtheria, bad throats, and bad heads. In the Quarry Bank school the effect on the attendance of these illnesses was a diminution of 20·3. It was because of that Report that Mr. Hawkins was authorised to make inquiry on the spot. Having done so, accompanied by Mr. Howitt, clerk to the Sedgley School Attendance Sub-Committee, he presented a Report, dated 28th September, 1907, in which the following passages occurred—
"We found (on the farm of Mr. A.) a woman with a sick child. She said she would never go hop picking again, and complained that the women and children suffered very much at nights owing to cold. They could not get sufficient warmth. Proceeding to Mr. B.'s farm at B—we inspected a shed specially built for the hoppers. This shed was divided into spaces about 10 feet by 12 feet. There was no shelter from the wet. Food was cooked by means of fires in iron cylinders, locally known as 'devils.' We spoke to a woman who said she came from a village near Walsall. It was the first time she had come, and would never come again. She was very obviously enceinte. She told us that a young woman, a man, his wife and three children, and herself and two children, slept together in one of the compartments above mentioned. The place was absolutely devoid of sanitary arrangements, and the people relieved nature as best they could. About 100 hoppers were sheltered here. We then proceeded to a farm in the occupation of Mr. A—. On the way we met a girl, aged eleven years, who said she had come from Dudley. She had accompanied and was helping her sister, a girl of fifteen. Her mother was ill and could not come. We found that this girl and her sister slept in a

1203
place about 12 feet by 14 feet with three other families. She stated that the women un-dressed. We called at the farm and were shown round by a labourer. We inspected the sleeping compartments, and found that most of them were about 12 or 14 feet square, the floors covered with straw and bags. The shelters appeared fairly clean, but were evidently terribly overcrowded, one, two, and three families sleeping in each compartment."
That was the condition of affairs in this hop field, and he felt that it would be almost an insult to the intelligence of the House to argue this matter. He thought the House would desire that the President of the Local Government Board should take what means he had in his power for dealing with it. Had the place to which he referred been within the jurisdiction of the Staffordshire County Council they would have endeavoured to enforce different arrangements. The degrading conditions to which men and women engaged on the hop fields were subjected were such as to call for the action of the Government. Surely there was sufficient power within the constitution of this country to deal with the state of things existing; and if the right hon. Gentleman had not got that power he was sure the House would be ready to give it to him.
MR. PARTINGTONsaid that there were two very large water undertakings in his constituency. The hon. Member for Stoke had referred to the Derwent Valley Water Board, which was in his constituency. He had had very serious protests from his constituents against the way in which the valley was being over-run by vagrants and people who went there to seek for work. The contractors for the works which were being carried out for the Water Board had erected huts for the men, which he had visited, and he found them very well kept, thoroughly clean and satisfactory. Indeed, the principal contractors took very good care of their workpeople. But he had noticed that some other contractors had been advertising for workers, with the result that the valley was over-run with undesirable people. What he would like the right hon. Gentleman to do was to send down an inspector to look into the matter and see whether something could not be done, because the resident in-
1204
habitants were getting alarmed at the number of tramps who were over-running the district. The chairman of the Chapel-en-le-Frith Board of Guardians had recently stated, "He knew, too, that no fewer than fifty men were sleeping in one barn, a dozen in another, and the same number in another, and so on, and, in fact, every haystack and pipe anywhere between Bamford and Derwent was a lodging place for these men." This question should not be treated on party lines, and something satisfactory should be done for the men who worked under very hard conditions all the year round.
MR. MACLEANsaid he had the pleasure of the personal acquaintance of a large number of navvies, and the conditions under which they lived and did their work had been forced upon his knowledge. There was a general idea that the navvy was outside the ordinary class of artisans; but from his own experience he found that the navvy was as generous, warmhearted, and responsive to kindly and just treatment as any other member of the community could be. He thought that the class was fortunate in being represented by such a gentleman as the hon. Member for Stoke. He was not overstepping the mark when he said that that hon. Member was as capable a representative of labour as was to be found in any Legislature in the world. A good deal had been said about the personal claims of this kind of workman to the consideration of the House. It had been pointed out that this was not a sentimental question at all, that the navvy had a claim to consideration as a citizen discharging a very useful function in the State, and it was as a national asset that he should be conserved in every possible way. It was on these grounds that the Motion now before the House had been brought forward. The conditions under which the navvies worked were not a matter of history, they were going on now and required an immediate remedy. He would give a specific instance. In the district of which the village of Alton was the centre, forty miles of railway construction were being carried on. The contractors who under- took that job made, in the first instance,

1205
not the slightest provision for the accommodation of their workmen. The people in the little town were crowded out of their houses, or had to turn their stables, yards, and out-houses into sleeping accommodation for the navvies. It was only towards the closing years of the contract that some accommodation had been provided for them by the contractors. What were the conditions under which these men lived? In the first place, they were very damaging to morals. He spoke from personal knowledge when he said that owing to the crowded state of the huts many of them became no better than sheebeens where illicit drinking was carried on. That did immense damage not only to the men themselves but to the inhabitants of the district. Everybody talked of the British navvy who undertook jobs in any part of the world; and why should the House not take special measures for preserving the good character of the British navvy? But what happened? Magnificent specimens of manhood as they were, in spite of their fine physique they were attacked with pneumonia and other diseases and simply died off as the snowdrift on the dykes melted under the rays of the sun. In spite of their apparent physical power their amount of resistance to disease was extraordinarily small, and the reason was the conditions under which they were compelled to live. The remedy lay very close at the hand of the President of the Local Government Board. It was open to him and those who worked with him to see that in any Bill containing statutory powers for carrying out works model clauses were inserted for providing for the navvies proper accommodation instead of overcrowded huts. Wherever a great railway in carrying out extensions displaced working-class people, new homes had to be provided, and there was a sufficient precedent for the provision of accommodation for the workers. Of course, there would be a difficulty with small contractors. The great railway companies carried out their work usually with a fair idea of what was due to the men, and so, as a rule, did the large contractors. There were men who, like the hon. Member for Colchester, took a very active and keen interest in the welfare of the men employed. But small
1206
contractors secured small jobs because they based their tenders upon a disregard or total neglect of these moral obligations. But let every contractor be put on the same basis and under the same conditions for providing temporary housing for their men, and the thing would remedy itself. This was not a party question, and should receive the hearty co-operation of Members in all parts of the House. If the President of the Local Government Board responded to the unanimous opinion of hon. Members, this class of British citizens would have more justice done to them in carrying out their work than at present was the case.
MR. NICHOLLSsaid that the case for the navvy had been put in most excellent form by the hon. Member for Stoke. The best navvies came from the agricultural districts, and he thought that the navvy and the agricultural labourer were very closely associated. One of the most important points in connection with this matter was that of advertising for workers by contractors. These contractors did not recognise or endeavour to carry out their responsibilities to their men, and that was the reason for a great deal of the moving about of navvies in the districts where public works were going on. There were, of course men who did not really want work, or who would not stick to it when they got it. The best men, however, stopped where they were well treated and were given good house accommodation and had reasonable conditions of labour. He had personal experience that where the men were not well treated in the way he had spoken of they did not stay at their work more than a day or two. He himself, when he was not satisfied with the conditions of work on a farm, became a navvy. Some contractors could not keep their men when the rule was to drive them hard all day and with no care or thought of where the men went at night. Good men would not remain under such conditions. Where these works were going on there was a constant and swift influx of hands who wanted accommodation somewhere. They went to the nearest village or hamlet, which soon became overcrowded. Those villagers who held their houses on a

1207
monthly or quarterly tenancy soon got notice, and the rent was raised; to meet the increased rent they crowded in lodgers. He lodged once in a cottage of two rooms. In that cottage were the husband and wife, two grown-up daughters, a boy of eight, and four lodgers, of whom he was one. The lodgers had the upstairs room and the family the lower room, the two daughters sleeping under the stairs in what was practically a coal-hole. The man and his wife used the bed which was always in the living-room, where they all had to feed. They were not rough, but good, honest, Christian, sober people, and anxious that their lodgers should have good accommodation. The cottage was kept clean, and they were made as comfortable as possible. No woman could have done more, or have done better. But what was the result? There was nothing else to be done, the men were crowding the district, and the consequence was that men would not stop long. In the winter that crowding went on in every available shelter. In the summer time men said they could not be roasted, and so slept outside under the hedgerows and haystacks, and in the cowsheds, and the police of the district, because they were feeling men, winked at it. How was it that someone did not come along and find out what was going on and who was to blame? The cottagers were not to blame, nor were the navvies, but somebody was. How was it that somebody did not come along when these contracts were being signed and sealed, and say that, before the work was begun and hundreds of people were brought into the district, a guarantee should be given by the contractors that shelter should be found for the workmen; that for the sake of cheapness the contractor should not be allowed to flood the district with these rough men, who would lie out because no proper accommodation was found for the best type of men? It affected the morals of the men. If a good man got into such conditions he would go down. What was a man to do on a wet day if he was not a frequenter of public-houses; where was he to go? He had either to go to a public-house or take refuge in a cowshed or other shelter.
1208
He considered that as well as housing accommodation it should not be considered a hardship for the contractor to have to provide some kind of shelter for his men on wet days. They could not go to the cottages, because the people there did not want to see them till they went in to bed. When night shifts were at work, one set of men often crept into bed half-an-hour after the others; had crept out; and a man on the day shift could not go to his lodgings on a wet day because there was somebody else in the bed. On one occasion there was a public-house which had a fine room, called a club-room; that would have been a convenient place to go to, but it was a lodging-room by night, and was like a hospital ward. Forty or fifty men crowded into it at night, and they could not go there for shelter on a wet day because it had ceased to be a club-room. There should be a full inquiry into this matter, and those who inquired into it should insist upon proper conditions for these men who worked hard and long at these works. The navvies were not the roughest people; with all the fears so many persons had of them there was no ground for saying they were rough. Many of them were Christian, sober people, and many were total abstainers. What was wanted was to bring the contractors up to the mark, and if they would not do what was right he, for one, would be ready to force them up to the point.
MR. W. E. HARVEYsaid he should not have intervened in the debate but for the fact that one of the fairest parts of the country, in the constituency from which he came, was subjected to treatment at the present time to which it had never been used in the whole of its history. When the Derwent Valley Water Board were carrying out their scheme they recognised their responsibilities with regard to the treatment of the workmen employed by them, and made provision for the ordinary comforts of life for this migratory population. Under that work they found a model state of things, and there was no complaint either from the men or from the organisations to which they belonged.

1209
In fact, the contractors met all the requirements of modern civilisation. Unfortunately there was now evidence of another type of contractor. Public bodies had dealt with the matter at their meetings, and there had been bitter complaints of the state of things that now existed in the Derwent Valley. The Sheffield Daily Telegraph, a Conservative newspaper, described it as a disgrace to the century. This was not the outcome of municipal or public works trading. It was the outcome of contracting, of selfish private interests, of greed. Hence there was a condition of things in which, though there might be housing accommodation, there were no sanitary arrangements, and no consideration for the well-being or welfare of the men who were doing the work, and for whom the nation was undoubtedly practically responsible. The hon. Member for Stoke had done great service for the migratory labour of the country, and he would receive the thanks of all the working people for what he had said and done that night. This was a trade union question, and one affecting the whole of the workmen of the country. In his own county he had known employers who had erected huts and created great injury by the want of sanitary arrangements. The one idea of the House of Commons ought to be that all the men employed on these works should be employed under proper conditions, whether on railways, waterworks, or in mines, and he was expecting to hear from the President of the Local Government Board an assurance with no uncertain sound that good sanitary conditions should be provided for great enterprises before the work was allowed to be proceeded with. That was only reasonable and right. He had great pleasure in supporting the Resolution.
SIR JOHN KENNAWAYsaid he could add nothing to the practical side of the question before the House, and as many of them had no personal experience, they were too apt to put aside what did not obtrude itself upon them. It was a happy thing that they could meet together, put aside their party differences, and think out the question how something could be done to improve the
1210
lot of the men engaged on these great public works, particularly in these days when both parties were eager to find work for the unemployed, and bring about a condition of things which should better their lot. He hoped the President of the Local Government Board would bring his knowledge to bear upon this question, and be able to say that something was being done and could be done to improve the conditions of labour in the direction that had been indicated.
MR. VIVIANsaid that, in supporting the Resolution, he would like to observe that the question was one which did not seem to attract the attention of a very large proportion of the Members. That, however, made it all the more necessary that they should be extremely careful in connection with the matter, and bring home to the right hon. Gentleman the importance of it. The question was one on which political pressure could not be brought to bear upon hon. Members owing to the peculiar position of the class which the hon. Member for Stoke so ably represented. If this had been a question affecting coal miners or cotton operators, the benches would have been crowded owing to the political pressure being so great. Here, however, was a class which, owing to their peculiar position and the kind of service they rendered to the community, were unable to organise for political purposes and to bring the necessary pressure to bear upon hon. Members. So far as navvies alone were concerned, they were dealing with a population of something like 100,000. He was sure no Member had ever listened to a more interesting debate. The realism brought into the discussion by the hon. Member for Stoke and by the hon. Member for Northants had made it very interesting, and had been very helpful. They had had able speeches from Members who understood the subject from the practical experience of life, and no one would complain of the manner in which the case had been presented. Did anyone believe that, if the conditions which had been so ably described, prevailed amongst a similar number of working class which played their part in elections, they would be allowed to last six months? The pressure on hon. Members would be

1211
so great that the House would be forced to deal with the evil. He thought that in considering social evils in the country of this kind, they ought to be not less, but more enthusiastic and anxious when they affected a large mass of people that had no political power. He did not know how far the right hon. Gentleman and his Department had systematised the enforcement by local authorities of their bye-laws in connection with the question. The question of | the application of the bye-laws was a peculiar one in this case because the districts in which the bye-laws had to be enforced were changing almost from month to month. It was difficult enough to carry bye-laws out thoroughly and satisfactorily where the area was the same, and pressure could be continuous from year to year and almost from generation to generation, but here they had a state of things where the application of the bye-laws was in one district for six or twelve months and then the pressure had to be put on fifty or 100 miles away. He should like to know that some steps were taken to systematise the pressure, so far as these bye-laws were concerned, in other words to make themselves acquainted with the existence of the demand and to keep in some way in touch with this kind of population. They kept in touch with workhouses, and various other things, and one really felt that it ought to be part of the duty of certain local government officials to keep in touch with this kind of population as well, and to see that their particular needs were met by the enforcement of bye-laws. Then he thought it would be worth considering whether they ought not, as matter of course, when Bills for carrying out large contracts came before the House, to impose some condition dealing with the provision of housing accommodation for the workers who were to be employed. That was not a revolutionary proposal, and he saw nothing that was economically unsound in it. When it was a question of preserving life and health, surely it could not be economically unsound. He drew the line in connection with economics always at the destruction of life. Here was a clear case both with regard to navvies and to hop-pickers where the evidence
1212
seemed to be overwhelming that large masses of human beings worked and lived under conditions which must be destructive to health and life. That clearly was a case for action. It was not a case of trying to get someone an eight-hour day who had at present nine, or of using the House to get 22s. or 24s. instead of 20s. It was a case of preserving life and health for a very large number of people, and it was a question of common decency. The things they had had described and the things that they imagined lay behind what the hon. Member for Staffordshire had been describing surely suggested that this was a question of common decency concerning which Members on all sides ought to unite at the earliest possible moment. When large numbers of women and children were brought together under the most demoralising and degrading conditions it was impossible to expect that these people could be really fit to fulfil the duties imposed by a civilised community. Surely it was their duty to arrest that at the earliest possible moment. With regard to the navvies, those who had had any experience of these matters—and he was; not going to argue whether the tendency to strong drink prevailed largely or otherwise—knew that a more worthy, kind-hearted, generous body of men they could not find in the country, and they were frequently very fine physically as young men. But they too often deteriorated as they got towards old age very largely because of the very evils they were now endeavouring to remedy. He appealed to his right, hon. friend not to let this be a mere pious resolution. They were not there to catch votes because there were no votes behind this question, but they were there to try and put a little pressure on the right hon. Gentle man to take a real step forward in the direction of removing evils which had been so vividly described by those who were competent to give a description.
MR. JOHN BURNS: The Motion before the House refers to two different classes of people who are engaged in either nomadic or temporary occupations. The first class is that engaged in works of construction, like the navvy, whose short but simple

1213
annals have been so admirably told by their excellent representative. The other class is one whose position in life is even more pathetic than that of the navvy. It is the hop-picker, the picker of fruit, and the vegetable picker, who are composed very frequently of more helpless men, women, and children than can be said of the navvy class. I can only say on this Motion that we are prepared heartily to accept it, and I can prove conclusively that long before this Motion was tabled the Local Government Board had taken practical and in many respects drastic action to secure the object the Resolution sets out to achieve. I believe the English navvy is the finest industrial worker to be found in any country. He is strong and willing, and, considering his strength and some of the insubordinate characteristics which he at times displays, he is a good-tempered, cheerful, optimistic creature who carries on a laborious work under circumstances which have always evoked my admiration and respect. When I took office I decided to give special attention to the humbler workers of the nomadic type, and I instituted a series of inquiries by one of the ablest and most sympathetic of the Board's medical inespctors, the result of which has been the production of some admirable reports. The effect of Dr. Farrar's investigations into the circumstances attending the construction of the Brooklands motor track, the condition of the hop, pea, and strawberry picker, and also of the navvies on railway, water, and drainage works is mainly responsible for the sentiment of practical sympathy which has been shown in this debate. No one can take up Dr. Farrar's admirably illustrated Reports on the condition of the hop and fruit pickers both in Worcestershire and in Kent without admitting that the Local Government Board are beginning to bring this subject closer to practical action than it has been able to secure for a number of years. It is estimated that there are, in the United Kingdom, about 100,000 men, women, and children connected with this particular class of work. A certain number of these will always get lodging accommodation—a single man easily and readily, but the women and children not so easily. Many of these good fellows, through "sleeping rough,"
1214
get into a condition in which ordinary cottagers will not take them in, and the effect of that is very often to lead them into a course of life the plane of which is invariably downwards. The letting of cottages to navvies often leads to overcrowding, and, if the work is on a large scale, the private accommodation in remote country districts is generally found to be insufficient. There is not the difficulty now in securing accommodation near large towns that there used to be, because the common lodging-houses are to-day infinitely superior to what they were. In this connection the Local Government Board may be said to have anticipated this debate by a circular issued some time ago, authorising boards of guardians to dispense with the detention period in the casual wards, thus giving these men accommodation which is not of the best, but such that many rough navvies prefer to some of the common lodging-houses, and therefore, the Local Government Board have done something in the right direction. Many contractors erect huts for navvies, but the type of hut which even the best contractor erects is never so good as the huts and the accommodation provided by the local authorities. The common type of hut is let to a ganger. The navvy lodgers are at one end, the kitchen in the centre, and the ganger and his family live at the other end. The average number is from fourteen to twenty in each hut, and the men pay from 12s. to 14s. a week for their board and lodgings, which is the same amount as was mentioned in a Report made sixty-six years ago. The navvy, however, has this advantage now, that he gets ever so much more for his money and considerably higher wages, besides an enhanced purchasing power The cubic air space of the best type of hut is fairly good. The cost is not very great to the contractor and many of them are being encouraged to improve this accommodation. There are other huts, erected by the ex-navvy gangers, some of which are not so good. Some are shebeens and, in many cases, they are badly conducted. A gain, there are contractors who fail altogether to make provision, and at present there is no legal authority to compel them to do so. The consequence is that hundreds of genuine navvies are compelled to "sleep rough" every night.

1215
Some of them actually sleep in the water pipes alongside the pipe track which is being laid to carry the water from one part of the country to another. One of the consequences of this is that many of these fine fellows are crippled and invalided prematurely by rheumatism contracted by the habit imposed on them of "sleeping rough" in the fields or under hutches. Apart from the serious rheumatism thus caused, the habit of sleeping rough tends to moral and physical degradation. It should be the interest of contractors to give these men better treatment. Good contractors recognise the obligation to provide accommodation because it enables them to get and to retain the best navvies. The effect of doing so reflects itself in economic and commercial advantage to them. This question, as has been truly said, is not a new one. So long ago as 1846 a Select Committee of the House of Commons made a report on the condition of railway labourers. I would like the hon. Member for Stoke not to weary in well-doing. Bad as are the conditions of the men in some of the instances which the hon. Member gave, they are not comparable with the condition of things revealed in the report of the Committee. The year 1846 was practically the beginning of the railway boom, and there were over 200,000 persons engaged in the work. These men, with their women and children, were badly housed and sheltered. They had monthly pays, a brutal truck system, hospitals were unknown, first-aid was not even thought about, and in connection with blasting, shoring, and excavation work, the most elementary precautions were ignored. Anyone who goes through the record of industrial mortality resulting from accidents at large public works of that kind between 1846 and 1870 will find what the state of affairs was. I took the trouble to do so, and I wrote a pamphlet on this subject. What struck me was the extreme want of knowledge that prevailed then with the result that these fine fellows were neglected when accidents occurred. That Committee had to deal with a worse condition of things than we have to deal with now, and they suggested that previous to the collection of large gangs of workmen at any spot it should be ascertained if
1216
accommodation had been provided. The Committee further recommended that there should be an official inspection of all works in progress. Notwithstanding the fact that we were engaged in increasing railways at the rate often of 500 to 1,000 miles a year, no legislative effect was given to these recommendations for nearly sixty-six years. These nomadic workers had not the franchise, and if they had had the franchise, their movement from place to place would have prevented them from exercising the vote. Notwithstanding the fact that the railway boom lasted from 1840 to 1874, there was little done in the direction of carrying out the Committee's recommendations. Now the railway boom has to a great extent passed away, and it has been truly said by the hon. Member for Stoke that speaking broadly and generally the great railway companies in the treatment of their permanent way hands of the ordinary staff have got their faces towards the light, and that on the whole in this regard they do generally the right thing. Where the railway companies by their own staffs make extensions of their trunk lines or make branch lines the navvies they employ get great consideration in the matter of accommodation. This state of things prevails also in connection with other classes of public works, and yet in spite of this I find that things are not so good as they ought to be, or as good as they must be made. From the reports made to me by Dr. Farrar, who has visited railway works, docks, reservoirs, and other works, I am driven to the conclusion that we have got to do something on lines I will subsequently indicate to the House. May I say that the local authorities of thirty or forty years ago used to let contracts with less consideration for the men whom the contractors employed? Now they do this thing exceedingly well. The hon. Member for Stoke deserves credit for the attitude he took up on this particular question. What Birmingham has done in this matter is to the credit of that city. Anyone who reads the industrial reports of 1894, 1896, and 1898 of the Elan Valley village will be able to realise what can be done for these men. Similar institutions have been set up by Swansea, Leeds, and Sheffield. We must all

1217
frankly confess that the local authorities have done a great deal of good in this direction. I have only to refer to the Elan Valley as an example of what local authorities might live up to. The works there took seven or eight years and in the picturesquely situated navvy village there were hospital for accidents, mission, schoolroom, public hall, recreation room, bath house, canteen, together with a gymnasium, and other amenities. Notwithstanding that there were from 1,700 to 2,300 men in that village, the reports of the local authority and the police were to the effect that what had been done for the men had been so wonderfully humanising and civilising that there was very little drunkenness and disorder. The local authority had been more than compensated for the money spent on the excellent arrangements made at the place for the comfort and convenience of the navvies under their control. For the continuation of this good work legislation is not necessary for the local authorities if the worst of them will do what the best are now doing. That brings me to the point raised by the hon. Member who represents the Derwent Valley, and the hon. Member for Stoke. I find that Section 64 of the Derwent Valley Water Act of 1899 contains the following—
"The Water Board or their contractors shall to the reasonable satisfaction of the medical officer of health for the County of Derby erect, fit up, and maintain hospitals or infirmaries and temporary huts or other buildings necessary for the accommodation of the servants and workmen employed by the board and their contractors, and the board shall provide and pay for all such assistance whether of doctors, surgeons or nurses as may be necessary and proper for the efficiency of all such hospitals or infirmaries."
When I read last week about the condition of affairs in Derwent Valley I decided to bring that clause in the Derwent Valley Water Board Act to the notice of the local authority, and to send down Dr. Farrar to approach both the local authority and the Water Board and
1218
point out the powers they had under this particular Act. I pass from the navvies to those employed on other public works like Blackwall Tunnel and the Rotherhithe Tunnel. There is no comparison between the way in which the men were treated some years ago and that in which they were treated in the construction of the Blackwall Tunnel, which took five or six years to complete, and on which several millions were spent. The London County Council appointed a resident medical officer of health and erected a small infirmary. No man was allowed to work in compressed air, except under well regulated conditions, and the result of taking this humane and elementary course for the preservation of the health of these men was that not one man actually died directly from the effects of working in compressed air. Twenty years ago the deaths would have been numbered by the score, and if the work had been carried out in some other countries the deaths would have numbered some hundreds. On the Rotherhithe Tunnel the Greenwich Corporation has done excellent work. I come now to the treatment of hop-pickers, fruit-pickers, and those engaged in vegetable growing. It is well that hon. Members should know what powers local authorities have in regard to these. Hon. Members have been asked by defaulting local authorities to put questions in the House, whereas if the local authorities were to put their existing powers in operation something practical might be done. For instance, Section 314 of the Public Health Act of 1875 enables any borough, urban, or rural district council to make bye-laws for securing decent lodgings and accommodation of persons engaged in hop-picking. By the Public Health (Fruit Pickers Lodging) Act of 1882, this enactment of 1875 was extended to fruit pickers. Again, Section 9 of the Housing of Working Classes Act of 1885 enables the same authority

1219
to make bye-laws for promoting cleanliness in and the habitable condition of tents, vans, sheds, and similar structures used for human accommodation. The Local Government Board have issued series of admirable bye-laws applicable to all these classes of workers, and by that means the local authorities have something to guide them in this class of work. However, I find that notwithstanding this local authorities are not doing what they should; and I have instructed Dr. Farrar to examine into the conditions under which these branches of industry are carried on, and to write a further report thereon. When his labours are concluded I trust to be able to take substantial steps for carrying out the recommendations of the Committee of 1846, and of adopting all the views which have been put forward by hon. Members to-night. But there is something the Local Government Board and the local authorities cannot do, and which is mainly the cause of the condition of things which now transpires in Derwent Valley. The hon. Member tells me that the Derwent Valley Water Board Act is a very good Act, and that the Derwent Valley Water Board have done their best to give good accommodation for those employed by them, but that men have been attracted to that part of the country in excess of the employment that can be given to them. To what is that due? It is that in certain papers which cater for navvies advertisements for hands appear longer than they should do. The result is that men are attracted to the spot where work is not to be had. I am acting in conjunction with the President of the Board of Trade in this matter, and some means will be devised that when public works have advanced a notice shall be put in the Labour Gazette and some other papers stating that no more men are required for these particular works. By that means much of the trouble which has been occasioned in,
1220
for example, the Derwent Valley area will be removed. I can only say that we accept this Motion. We have been doing for months something to anticipate it on its practical side. There are two alternatives before us to provide for the condition of things that has been revealed. First, there is general legislation. Well, general legislation is all very well for men whose occupation is permanent, but I am under the impression that general legislation of a fixed and stereotyped kind is not so suitable to that class of labour which is more or less variable, and which can best be dealt with by more elastic and adaptable bye-laws. The other alternative is that: there should be a Standing Order of the House of Commons requiring in every private Bill authorising large works of construction a provision that the local authority should be notified thereof, and that proper accommodation should be made. At the present moment I have not finally made up my mind as to which of the two alternatives I shall take; but as soon as Dr. Farrar has concluded his report, I will submit to the House either a Standing Order or suggest an improvement in the process of administration by which what is sensible and practicable in the Report of the Committee of 1846 may be carried into effect so as to help the navvy and improve his lot. I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that if the hon. Member who moved the Motion, and the hon. Member for Stoke with whom I have been in hearty co-operation upon this particular matter, will accept my interpretation of this Motion, and will take what I have already done, which some hon. Gentlemen, through no fault of theirs, could not know, as a practical proof of the keen interest we take in this matter, then when I get Dr. Farrar's Report, and I take the course I have sketched in brief outline, we shall have, gone a long way to improve the condition of the navvy and the other workmen of this country. If I can do that,

1221
then I can say that the navvy now and henceforth will be indebted to the two hon. Members who moved and seconded this Resolution, which will lead to the improvement of one of our best types of labour; labour that has built the railways and constructed the drainage and water works and reservoirs of this country; labour which is too frequently underpaid, too frequently injured and killed, without any remedy, in carrying out great public works which should have been conducted in a more humane manner. If all this is the result of our debate to-night the navvies will have cause to be grateful to the mover of the Motion for initiating in this interesting and humane discussion that has taken place on this, one of the most important branches of social reform.
AN HON. MEMBER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when Dr. Farrar's Report will be sent in?
MR. JOHN BURNS: In a few days.
Resolved, "That this House considers that immediate steps should be taken to secure the provision of proper sanitary housing accommodation for workpeople employed upon works of construction and in other occupations of a temporary character."—(Mr. Maddison.)

DEPOPULATION (ROXBURGHSHIRE).
SIR J. JARDINE*SIR J. JARDINE (Roxburghshire), in moving—"That this House regards with concern the depopulation in the rural districts of the county of Roxburgh and other parts of Scotland, and the injurious results thereof to the national welfare, and considers that remedial legislation is urgently needed,"—said that in the short time at his disposal he would urge first that the statements made in the Motion were true, so far as the whole of Scotland was concerned, but especially so with regard to Roxburghshire, which had become a by-word for
1222
scanty population. The depopulation of the districts was chiefly amongst the class which engaged in agriculture and local work, small farmers and farm servants. Almost within the memory of the oldest inhabitant the countryside was teeming with an agricultural population, but owing to the inclosure system, and the consequent incorporation of the small farms with large ones, that condition of things had disappeared. The process was described in Sir John Sinclair's Statistical Accounts. Nearly the whole of Roxburghshire was now divided: into great estates and large farms, and the classes who produced such men as Robert Burns and James Hogg were fast disappearing from the face of their native land. This result greatly imperilled the military defence of this country, because it was from the stalwart men raised in the countryside that the finest soldiers, were produced. Even the amenities of life had disappeared in these lovely districts. Dykes running up the Cheviots showed that private ownership had invaded the mountain tops. Fishing was made a crime along the pleasant banks of Tweed and Teviot, of Jed and Liddell and every wimpling burn: if you tried to catch a trout, the water-baillies would catch and handcuff you. Even a pleasant walk along the stream was prohibited as a trespass. The Motion he proposed was a remedial measure dealing with the land and the people. An enormous portion of the population affected were farm servants, yet men who had been on the farm for forty years, and who had learnt every operation connected with the industry, who knew well how to reap and sow and plough and mow, who understood horses, sheep, machinery, and all the work of the lambing season, could only obtain as maximum wages 22s. a week. Conditions were made by the farmers which sometimes rendered it impossible for a man to obtain work. For instance, a man might be required to bring with him a woman worker who would receive 11s. a week, and if he had no

1223
wife, daughter, sister, or other relative, whom he could bring, he did not get work for himself. On other occasions they were told to bring a second man to work under them. Sometimes the conditions changed, and he was told there was no more need of the double kind and that if he could not get rid of the second man, both must go. What these people most desired was to have some opportunity, as time went on, to raise themselves in the world, to get a place where a man's widow and children might stay on instead of getting notice to quit the home when the shepherd or ploughman died. There was a growing feeling of bitterness, disappointment, and despair. The chief remedy was small holdings. Now that they saw small holdings being created in England and Wales, the new Act having made every county council set to work so that many thousands of farm servants were already seeking for land, the people of Roxburghshire were most anxious that something should be done for them on the same lines. He begged to move.
MR. DUNDAS WHITEsaid he desired to second the Motion. The proposition it contained was fully borne out by the figures of the recent Report on the Decline of the Agricultural Population. So far as Scotland was concerned, the agricultural population had declined by 40,000 in twenty years. There was enormously increased emigration and over-crowding in the towns, and the time, in his opinion, had come when some step should be taken to remedy this great evil.
It being Eleven o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

PUBLIC OFFICES SITES (EXTENSION) [EXPENSES] REPORT.
Postponed proceeding on Question, "That this House doth agree with the
1224
Committee in the Resolution, That it is expedient to authorise 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,'" resumed.
Question again proposed.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
Read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (IRELAND) [CONSOLIDATED FUND].
Resolution reported:—
"That it is expedient to authorise the advance, out of the Consolidated Fund, of any sum necessary to meet any deficiency in the Fund of Suitors in the Supreme Court in Ireland in pursuance of any Act of the present session to provide further facilities for the erection of houses for the working classes in cities and towns in Ireland."

LOCAL TAXATION, NATIONAL DEBT, AND ASSESSORS [PAYMENTS].
Resolutions reported—
"That it is expedient that the power to levy the duties on certain local taxation licences in England and Wales should be transferred to county councils, and that section seventeen of the Finance Act,

1225
1907, should not apply to such duties, and that an annual sum be paid out of the Consolidated Fund to the local taxation account to be distributed amongst the county councils in England and Wales in connection with the transfer."
"That it is expedient that the surplus of income over expenditure for the year ended 31st March, 1908, to the extent of £600,000, instead of being applied as provided by The Sinking Fund Act, 1875, be applied to defray expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Works in connection with public offices."
"That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of increased allowances to assessors of taxes."
Ordered, That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Finance Bill that they have power to make provision therein pursuant to the said Resolution.

CHILDREN [EXPENSES].
Resolution reported—
"That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses that may be incurred and of any contributions that may be made under the provisions of any Act of the present session to consolidate and amend the Law relating to the Protection of Children and Young Persons."
Resolution read a second time.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that no objection ought to be raised to the vote being taken, but he did not know whether he was in order in asking whether there was any reasonable chance, with regard to the matters which had been put down for the next day, of having
1226
the Bill printed so that they might be referred to. It was after eleven o'clock and many of them were not prepared to discuss this Resolution. They had not anticipated that it would be brought forward at that stage. It was very inconvenient that they should have to submit to this Resolution being forced on the House. Several of the matters put down for next day had not been printed.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can obtain them at the Vote Office.
MR. J. A. PEASEsaid he had given notice at about twenty to nine on the last evening that it was proposed to take this stage after eleven o'clock.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid he wished to point out the great inconvenience of this method.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is discussing the Resolution which was passed yesterday. He should have raised his objection then.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid he was dealing with the report of the Children (Expenses) Resolution, and he had great difficulty in discussing the question because of the procedure which was inconvenient to Members, many of whom did not know it was coming on. The Government were asking for a grant of money without giving the slightest estimate or limit as to the amount required, and they were doing it at a time which was inconvenient. The right hon. Gentleman himself on many occasions in the last Parliament had protested against giving a blank cheque to the Government. There were Amendments limiting the amount which ought to be discussed, but which would not be moved. He appealed to the Government not to take matters of this kind at that time of night.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he had an Amendment to leave out the words "and of any contributions that may be made," which were extremely vague. He had never heard anything which threw any light on what they meant. If they were left out the expenses which might be incurred would still be provided. He did not wish to enter into a long explanation. He would content himself with moving to omit those words.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 2, to leave out the words 'and of any contributions that may be made.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said Resolution."
THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,)said they had already had a discussion of over an hour's duration on this Resolution, and had gone into all the questions to which the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University had referred—the blank cheque, the £5,000 limit and so forth—and he hardly thought the House would desire to repeat them. The Amendment raised a different point, but it was merely a drafting point. The hon. Member proposed that the Resolution should authorise any expenses which might be incurred, but not any contributions which might be made. The difference between expenses and contributions was purely a verbal one. "Contributions" was inserted because under the Bill it was proposed to enable them to be made for industrial and reformatory school children who might be emigrated, and it was, perhaps, doubtful whether "expenses" would cover these
1228
contributions. Contributions for emigration were to be made in accordance with the recommendation of a Departmental Committee presided over by a Member of the late Government.
Amendment negatived.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member move the next Amendment of which he has given notice?
SIR F. BANBURYdid not think it was any use. Perhaps it would be more convenient to submit to the greater strength of the Government, but he must raise a protest against this way of conducting business.

ADJOURNMENT.
MR. J. A. PEASE MR. J. A. PEASE, in moving the adjournment of the House, said that to-morrow after eleven o'clock the Government proposed to take the Report stages of three money Resolutions:—Old-Age Pensions, Irish Universities, and Public Offices Sites.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. J. A. Pease.)
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that the hon. Gentleman must not expect that the worm would not sometimes turn. There were things which flesh and blood could not stand. If they had three Resolutions every night after eleven o'clock it might possibly be necessary to discuss them.
Adjourned at twenty-one minutes after Eleven o'clock.