Commons Sitting of 22 April 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Preston, Chorley and Horwich Tramways Bill,
Read the third time and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law) Bill, Read a second time.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Inquests in Licensed Premises.
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIENasked under what circumstances two inquests were recently held by the coroner for the southern division of the county of Dublin in licensed premises in Ranelagh, having regard to the fact that the Rathmines Urban District Council a few years ago erected a morgue on a site at the rear of the town hail, with the express view of putting a stop to the practice?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I am informed by the Coroner that in both cases the inquest was held in licensed premises because the circumstances were such as to render it advisable to have the body viewed in the place and position in which death occurred. Had the inquest been held in the Rathmines Morgue the jury would have had a considerable distance to walk to view the body, which would have caused them great inconvenience and considerable delay. The Coroner adds that the Rathmines Morgue is a great advantage to that district, and that he always avails himself of it when circumstances permit him to do so.

  National Schools, Ireland (Monitors).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland
  1652
  whether he is aware that the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have intimated that monitors in their last year in 1911 must take a language in addition to English; whether, having regard to the fact that many managers and parents are opposed to the teaching of Irish, and in rural districts there are no facilities for teaching a modern European language, it is intended to enforce this rule and, if so, what provision will be made for supplying the deficiency in the number of monitors which must result from it?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a question on the same subject asked on behalf of the hon. Member for North Armagh on the 5th inst. The Commissioners do not anticipate that any deficiency in the supply of monitors is likely to result from the proposed rule.

  Marlborough Training College.
  Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is proposed to give a special grant for building female teachers residences this Session in connection with the Marlborough Training College?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have nothing to add to my reply (which was in the negative) to the question on the same subject asked by the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh on 7th December last.

  Shannon Floods near Athlone.
  Sir WALTER NUGENTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if attention has been called to the fact that, owing to the non-working of the sluice gates on the Shannon at Meelick, near Athlone, the surrounding country has been again flooded; and if he will give instructions to have these gates more regularly worked in future so as to prevent this constant recurrence of damage to the property of residents in the vicinity?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member appears to have been misinformed. The Board of Works tell me that since the beginning of the month all the sluices at Meelick have been open and working to their fullest capacity, and that any flooding has been due to the exceptionally heavy rainfall in the Shannon basin.

  Persia (Six Days' Armistice).
  Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs

  1653
  Whether he can furnish the House with any information with regard to the present condition of Persia; and whether he is in a position to state what steps His Majesty's Government are taking with a view to putting an end to the present state of affairs and to the safeguarding of British life and property?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): The representatives of Great Britain and Russia at Teheran, as the result of their representations, have obtained the Shah's consent to a six days' armistice at Tabriz, during which food may be introduced into the town. Bushire, from which the governor has fled, is still in the hands of Seyyid Morteza and his Tangistani followers, who are nominally champions of the Nationalist cause. Bluejackets have been landed there from His Majesty's ship "Fox" for the protection of the lives and property of foreigners. I have no reports of danger to British subjects in other places. The only apparent way to put an end to the present state of affairs is for the Shah to introduce reforms, to dismiss advisers who are both reactionary and incompetent, and to convoke an Assembly. This might have an immediate effect in pacifying the country, and would thus make a better state of things and reforms possible. The British and Russian representatives at Teheran have made jointly the most serious representations to the Shah to this effect. Tabriz is the one place where the situation is critical, and should negociations during the armistice fail to effect a settlement, the Russian Government, who alone are in a position to act there, have made arrangements which will, I trust, secure the opening of the road to supplies of food for the town, and protect foreign subjects in it.

  Affairs in Turkey.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make any statement with regard to the present state of affairs in Turkey; and whether he can make any statement as to what steps are being taken to protect British life and property in the present crisis?
  Sir E. GREY: I am unable to say what the final settlement at Constantinople will be, but no disturbances have occurred in the last day or two, and a proclamation issued by the investing Army stated that neutral persons will be protected, and that foreign Embassies and subjects will be un-
  1654
  molested. With regard to other parts of Turkish territory where disturbances may occur, the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have given permission to His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople to arrange direct with the Commander-in-Chief of the Mediterranean station for the despatch of ships to any point at which danger to foreigners may be anticipated. Disturbances have occurred at Adana, Mersina, Tarsus, Antioch, and, it is rumoured, at Burudjik; but, according to our latest intelligence, things appear to be quiet at all these places now. The only places on the coast at which troubles were anticipated were Mersina, Alexandretta, and Beyrout; but at the two latter towns order has been maintained. One of His Majesty's ships has been sent to each of these three places, and 50 sailors have been landed at Alexandretta.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what naval force is available in the Mediterranean at present?
  Sir E. GREY: Perhaps the hon. Member will ask the Admiralty. I do not know the exact composition of the Mediterranean squadron.

  Congo.
  Sir CHARLES DILKEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he proposes to lay before the House the text of the Belgian Government's reply to the British despatch of 4th November last; whether the presentation of the reply will be accompanied by an answer from His Majesty's Government; and whether the House may rest assured that the previously announced policy holds good, to the effect that no steps will be taken to recognise the annexation of the Congo by Belgium until the House has had an opportunity of expressing its opinion thereon?
  Sir E. GREY: As I informed the hon. Member for Newcastle on 18th March, the question of the reply to the last Belgian Note is under consideration, and until this has been settled I am unable to name a date for publication. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.
  Mr. REES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any, and, if so, what, alternative to Belgian annexation is seriously contemplated?
  Sir E. GREY: That is a question for the answer to which I must ask the hon. Member to wait until the reply of the Belgian Government has been laid before the House.
  Sir CHARLES DILKEasked if His Majesty's Government continues to be in communication with the Government of the United States as to the measures which it may become necessary to adopt should the withholding of recognition of the Belgian annexation of the Congo prove insufficient to secure the essential reforms pressed for by the British and American Governments?
  Sir E. GREY: Certain questions in connection with the Belgian Note are being referred to the law officers. As soon as these questions are settled, I shall communicate to the Government of the United States the nature of our reply and our views of the situation.

  Constitutional Government in Turkey.
  Mr WEDGWOODasked whether there is any ground for assuming that His Majesty's Government have in any way whatever given diplomatic support to the so-called Liberal Union in Turkey or criticised the action of the Committee of Union and Progress; and whether the Young Turks had received hitherto, and could still count on, the sympathetic support of His Majesty's Government in any steps they may take to maintain the constitution?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to both the first questions is in the negative. The answer to the last question is that His Majesty's Government have consistently welcomed the establishment of Constitutional Government in Turkey since its introduction in July last, but that they refrain from any intervention in party politics, as being outside the province of a foreign Government. As to our general attitude, I need only repeat what was said by the Prime Minister at Glasgow on the 17th, that our only desire is to see the Turkish Government carry out a policy of reform and of good and just administration; and that any Turkish Government which pursues these objects honestly with a single eye to the public interest may count upon the continued and strong sympathy of His Majesty's Government.

  Sultan and British Embassy.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any official information has been received relative to an intention on the part of the Sultan Abdul Hamid to take refuge at the British Embassy at Constantinople; and whether he would advise His Majesty's Ambassador that such action
  1656
  would gravely inconvenience His Majesty's Government, and cannot be permitted?
  Sir E. GREY: The answers are in the negative.

  British Residents in Tabriz.
  Dr. RUTHERFORDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has recently received a telegram from British residents in Tabriz asking for protection; and, if so, whether he could say what steps he is taking in the matter?
  Sir E. GREY: On the 19th instant I received a telegram from British subjects at Tabriz, stating that they were in imminent danger of attack. As regards the second part of the hon. Member's question, I beg to refer him to my reply returned to-day to the hon. Member for the St. Andrews District.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: What is the date of the commencement of the six-days' armistice?
  Sir E. GREY: I think it was Monday; I am not quite sure.

  Egyptian Provincial Councils.
  Mr. JOHN ROBERTSONasked whether the modifications made in the Egyptian Provincial Councils Draft Scheme during its progress through the Legislative Council are to be accepted in whole or in part by the Egyptian Government.
  The HON. MEMBERalso asked whether an official committee is at present sitting at Cairo for the elaboration of a scheme to establish a municipality there; whether the scheme has yet taken shape; and whether it will be submitted to the Legislative Council for approval?
  Sir E. GREY: The matters referred to in both the hon. Member's questions are dealt with in Sir Eldon Gorst's Annual Report, which has been received, and will shortly be laid.

  Evicted Tenants (County Wicklow).
  Mr. JAMES O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he could state the number of evicted tenants in the county Wicklow on the 1st January, 1904; how many since that date had been reinstated or provided with other holdings; how many applications for reinstatement had been rejected; and how many had the Estates Commissioners promised to restore to their own farms or to other farms in the county Wicklow?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have no information as to the total number of evicted tenants in county Wick-low on 1st January, 1904, but up to the present they have received applications for reinstatement from 140 persons, who state they or their predecessors were evicted from holdings in the county. After enquiry and consideration the Commissioners have rejected 63 applications, 23 applicants have been reinstated or provided with other holdings, and 24 others have been noted for consideration in the allotment of untenanted land. The remaining 30 applications were not received within the time specified by the Evicted Tenants Act.

  Cliffe Estate, Fermoy, County Cork.
  Mr. WILLIAM ABRAHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he would ascertain from the Estates Commissioners whether the sale and purchase of the Cliffe estate, near Fermoy, county Cork, was nearing completion, and what action had the Commissioners taken to bring about the reinstatement of Daniel O'Connor in his former holding on the estate; whether the holding in question was in the occupation of a man named Bird who did not possess the status of a genuine tenant; and if the Commissioners had offered or would offer him a holding of equivalent value elsewhere, and thereby effect the restoration of Daniel O'Connor to his old holding?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have referred the papers in connection with this estate to one of their inspectors. Until his report is received the Commissioners will not be in a position to furnish the information asked for.

  Railways in Ireland (Private Bills).
  Mr. P. A. MEEHANasked how many Private Bills authorising the making of railways in Ireland other than those promoted by existing railway companies had been passed during the last ten years; how many Bills of a like nature were before, or had passed, the Standing Orders Committee on Private Bills this year; how many of those projected lines had been made, and how many were in course of construction; and how many of those projected lines had been promoted by speculators who had no connection with or knowledge of the districts through which the proposed lines were to run?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed that eight Private Bills authorising the con-
  1658
  struction of new railways in Ireland (other than Bills promoted by existing railway companies) have been passed during the last ten years. So far as the Board of Trade are aware one of these lines (the Strabane and Letterkenny Railway) has been opened, and one (the Castleblaney, Keady and Armagh Railway) is in course of construction. In the present Session there are two Irish Railway Bills promoted by new companies, namely, the Kilkenny, Castlecomer, and Athy Railway Bill, and the Sligo and Bundoran Railway Bill. Neither of these Bills has yet been read a second time. I have no means of obtaining the information asked for in the concluding portion of the question.

  British Guiana and Canada (Preferential Tariff).
  Mr. STAVELEY-HILLasked whether the Court of Policy of the Colony of British Guiana had signified its desire, through the Governor, to conclude a preferential tariff with Canada; and what steps His Majesty's Government had taken to assist them in the matter?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): The Combined Court of British Guiana recently passed a resolution in favour of preferential treatment being given to Great Britain and British possessions, the preamble of the resolution referring more especially to the Dominion of Canada. Pending the appointment of the Royal Commission to inquire into the trade relations between Canada and the West Indian Colonies, His Majesty's Government have not taken any action in the matter.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: When is the Royal Commission likely to be appointed?
  Colonel SEELY: Before very long; I cannot give the precise date.

  British Indians in the Transvaal.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he was aware that about two-thirds of the British-Indians who were domiciled and resident in the Transvaal before the war had either left South Africa or been deported; whether that was owing to their less favourable treatment in the Transvaal Colony than in the late Transvaal Republic; whether the deportees included a number of British-Indians born in South Africa, and in some cases in the Transvaal; and, if so, would any steps be taken

  1659
  by the Secretary of State to represent to the Transvaal Government that the British-Indians thus treated were subjects of His Majesty, whose rights as such should be respected?
  The HON. MEMBERfurther asked (1) whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that on the 11th April, 1909, a mass meeting of all sections of British-Indians took place in the Transvaal to protest against General Botha's statement that many Asiatics were content with the present conditions in the Transvaal as affecting themselves; and whether, having regard to the fact that the British-Indian population were now reduced to half normal and a third of the number 12 months after the war, the rest having fled the country or been deported, representations would be made to the Transvaal Government with a view to mitigate the treatment that was being imposed on these British subjects; (2) whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that on 14th April another 16 British-Indians were deported. from Mozambique for India; whether included among the number were old residents in the Transvaal of 11 and 15 years; and, if so, whether in view of the Registration Laws, which were not intended to apply so as to expel lawfully resident Indians in the Transvaal, representations would be made to the Transvaal Government that such British subjects might at least enjoy the benefit of the Law.
  Colonel SEELY: I will answer my hon. Friend's three questions together. Complete figures for the British Indian population in the Transvaal are not available. It appears from an estimate furnished to Lord Milner in March, 1899, that there were about 5,400 to 5,600 traders and hawkers in the Transvaal at that time. a later estimate made after the war put the total number of Asiatics at over 15,000, before the war. At the time of the British occupation the official estimate was that the Asiatic population barely numbered 2,000. Up to the 5th March, 1903, 4,902 permits had been sanctioned, but a large number of Asiatics entered the Colony without authority and the total of the Asiatics at that time was put at about 10,000. It is natural that there should have been some diminution in the number, as a proportion of those who left the country on the outbreak of the war must have been unable or unwilling to return. The figures published on page 35 of
  1660
  Cd. 4327 show that 9,158 applications to register under the compromise of January, 1908, had been received before August, 1908, and these covered practically every adult male Asiatic in the country, whether legally or illegally resident, and that of these 7,773 had been granted in addition to 600 who had previously registered. The Secretary of State has no information as to the mass meeting or as to the specific cases of deportation alluded to in the question. The action of the Transvaal Government is doubtless taken in pursuance of the law on the lines explained by the Secretary of State in another place on March 24th, and as at present advised, he sees no reason to make representations on behalf of persons who would appear to be breaking the provisions of laws which have been duly enacted and have received the Royal Assent.
  Mr. O'GRADY: Is it not the fact that this law was never intended to apply to Asiatics domiciled in the Transvaal or South Africa generally]
  Colonel SEELY: No, Sir. If my hon. friend will put down a question on the specific legal point, I think I shall be able to satisfy him that the law has been strictly observed by the Transvaal Government. Of that I think there can be no doubt.

  British Indians in the Transvaal (Treatment of Mr. Gandhi).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he was aware that Mr. Gandhi, the Transvaal Indian leader, who was undergoing three months' hard labour under the registration laws, was, on 10th March, marched from the Pretoria gaol to the magistrate's court, where his attendance was required as a witness, handcuffed: whether he would inquire if this indignity upon Mr. Gandhi was intentionally imposed by the authorities or occurred by mistake; and whether representations would be made to the Transvaal Government to treat British Indians, who were going to gaol for what they consider to be conscience sake, less severely than convicted criminals?
  Colonel SEELY: The incident referred to has not been specially reported to the Secretary of State, but inquiry is being made as to this point. The Secretary of State does not think that any useful purpose would be served by representations to the Government of the Transvaal with

  1661
  a view to any further differentiation in the treatment of British Indian prisoners than is already made in the matters referred to on pages 17, 18, 35, 50 of Cd. 4584.
  Mr. O'GRADY: Would the same kind of treatment be imposed upon a villain of the worst type who happened to be a white?
  Colonel SEELY: No doubt. There has been no suggestion that Mr. Gandhi has been subjected to any special disability.
  Sir HENRY COTTON: Is it the custom in the Transvaal to take witnesses who are to give evidence in the criminal courts through the streets in handcuffs?
  Colonel SEELY: Mr. Gandhi has been treated in every respect as any other prisoner would have been treated, and on a previous occasion he himself said he did not wish to be treated in any other way.
  Sir H. COTTON: Then I presume it is the practice there.
  Colonel SEELY: I should like my hon. friend to put down a question as to the precise practice; but I am quite certain that I am correct in saying that Mr. Gandhi has not been subjected to any special indignity.
  Mr. BYLES: Does the hon. Gentleman definitely state that colour makes no difference whatever in the treatment of this gentleman?
  Colonel SEELY: It made no difference whatever.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is customary for witnesses going to give evidence to be taken through the streets to the police-court handcuffed!
  Colonel SEELY: As I have said, if any hon. Member will put down a question as to the precise custom I shall be prepared to answer it. I have been very carefully into the matter this morning, and I am satisfied on the evidence laid before me that Mr. Gandhi has been subjected to no indignity beyond that suffered by any person of any colour in similar cases.

  Small Holdings (Bedfordshire).
  Mr. BLACKasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he could state the number of
  1662
  applicants under the Small Holdings Act and the number of acres applied for in the parish of Marston Moretaine, Bedfordshire, and what steps were being taken to supply those applicants with land; and whether he would send down an inspector to make inquiries?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir Edward Strachey): Applications for 116 acres were received from 10 applicants, and two of them were approved. The land required has not, however, been provided, inasmuch as the Council have not as yet been able to acquire suitable land at a price which would enable it to be let at the rental which the applicants are prepared to pay. At present there seems to be no necessity to send down an inspector.

  Eight of Way (Longton, Staffordshire).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he had any information as to the closing of a public right of way leading out of Stone Road across the fields to Lobshurst Farm, and thence out into Boy Lane, near Longton, Staffordshire; and what action, if any, he proposed to take to protect public rights in the matter?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: We have no information as to the closing of the public right of way mentioned, nor have we any power to intervene in such matters. I would suggest that my hon. Friend might communicate with the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society on the subject.

  Sind Police Service (Promotions).
  Mr. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India, whether he was aware that dissatisfaction prevails amongst the European officers of police in Sind owing to the fact that natives of India had been promoted over their heads regardless of seniority, and of the fact that in some cases such natives of India had not had entirely satisfactory records; and whether the Government would make inquiries into the matter?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse, for Mr. Buchanan): The Secretary of State has no information on the subject. If the hon. Member will supply some further details, he will consider whether an enquiry is desirable.

  Coconada Riots (Cost of Police).
  Mr. REESasked whether any action had been taken by the Government of Madras to relieve European non-officials of Coconada, who were sufferers in the recent riots, from payment of a share of the cost of the punitive police force imposed upon the town?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a similar question on 26th November last. The Secretary of State has received no official information on the subject.
  Mr REES: Will the hon. Gentleman represent to the Secretary of State the hardships these people have already suffered, and ask him kindly to consider the matter?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the matter.

  Royal Navy (Vessels Scrapped, 1901–5).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked how many of the cruisers and other craft which were scrapped in 1904–5, on the ground that they had no serious military value, were still in service or figured in the effective list?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): No vessels which were scrapped in 1904–5 are still in the service. The hon. Gentleman probably refers to Return No. 74 of 1905, showing the vessels struck off the list of effective ships of war. None of the vessels in that list had any serious military value, but there are altogether 44 of them which are now, or may be in the future, employed on subsidiary naval service, and are now or may be shown in the list of the navy accordingly. A nominal return of them, together with the purposes for which they are or may be appropriated, will be circulated with the printed papers. [See Written Answers this date.]
  Mr. LONSDALE: Did the right hon. Gentleman say that the ships are still on the effective list?
  Mr. McKENNA: They are not on the effective list as effective ships of war, but they are performing subsidiary services in the Navy.
  Mr. BELLAIRS: When the right hon. Gentleman says that none of these vessels were "scrapped," is it not the case that the Prime Minister and the First Lord of the Admiralty of the day described them as "scrapped"?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have no knowledge whether the word was used by the then Prime Minister or First Lord of the Admiralty; if it was, I venture to say that it was rather a loose use of the word.
  Mr. WATT: Does not the Admiralty insist on the breaking up condition when a sale is effected?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on this question.

  Edinburgh School Board (Book Supplies).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the action of the Edinburgh School Board in refusing to supply books free to any children in the Catholic schools within their district, whilst at the same time they are supplying books free only to children in schools under their management; and whether he proposes to take any, and, if so, what, action in order to secure that the provisions of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, are duly observed by this school board?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I have no information as to the action of the Edinburgh School Board in the matter referred to, but in terms of Section 3 (6) of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, it is entirely within the discretion of a school Board to supply school books—not to the managers of schools—but to any or all of the pupils in attendance at any or all of the State-aided (including Catholic) schools within their district.
  Mr. H. BELLOC: If that discretion is used with a distinct religious bias, do the authorities propose to take any action?
  Mr. URE: The Education Department have no right to interfere. It is a matter entirely in the discretion of the School Board.
  Mr. BOLAND: Is the Lord Advocate aware those words "within the district under their management" were added in order to safeguard this very difficulty under which the Catholic schools were placed; and is he not aware this very argument was used by the Secretary of State for Scotland that the Catholics were getting fair treatment, and, as a matter of course, were not entitled to press for further financial consideration?
  Mr. URE: They do receive fair treatment and are placed in exactly the same position as the Protestant children in other schools.
  Mr. BOLAND: Is he not aware that is doing the precise thing complained of, giving books to necessitous children who happen not to be Catholics, and refusing books to necessitous children who happen to be Catholics?
  Mr. URE: I am not aware whether they are doing so or not. If they are doing so it is a matter entirely within their discretion, and they must exercise that discretion.
  Mr. BOLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman have an inquiry instituted into this matter, which raises the whole question of the attitude of the Government towards Catholics in Scotland?
  Mr. URE: I do not think it raises the question of the attitude of the Government, but it raises the attitude of a particular School Board on a certain matter, and it does not require inquiry.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Will he inquire of the School Board on what ground they base their action?
  Mr. URE: When I am informed they have taken that action then an inquiry might be made.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Will he inquire on what ground they defend their action?
  Mr. URE: Yes, there is no reason why one should not.

  New Fishery Cruiser (Scotland).
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Lord Advocate whether the new fishery cruiser is in all respects satisfactory; and when she will be ready to take up her duties?
  Mr. URE: As I have already stated, the cruiser's preliminary trial trip is expected to take place before the end of this month. Until then I can make no definite statement as to when she will take up her duties.

  Arbroath Pension Case.
  Mr. T. F. RICHARDSasked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that an old lady who applied for a pension to the Arbroath pension committee has been refused on the ground that her income exceeds £31 10s., the fact being that this lady lives with her married daughter whose husband is in receipt of more than £200 per year, and for the domestic services rendered by the mother the daughter allows her board and lodging; whether he is aware that board and lodging is ob-
  1666
  tained in Arbroath for domestics at 6s. per week; and whether he can take any action in this matter?
  Mr. URE: I am aware that an old lady resident in Arbroath, to whose case, no doubt, my hon. Friend refers, has been refused a pension on the grounds mentioned in the question. The decision of the pension committee in this case was confirmed, on appeal, by the Local Government Board. I have no power to take any action in the matter, the decision of the Local Government Board being final. But I may inform my hon. friend that I considered the facts of the case, and I saw no reason whatever to differ from the view taken by the pension committee and the Local Government Board. I am not aware that board and lodging is obtained in Arbroath for domestics at 6s. per week. But, even if that were so, it would in no way affect the decision arrived at in the present case.

  Agricultural School for North-West Counties (Ireland).
  Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), whether, before any particular farm is purchased for the proposed agricultural school for the north-west counties, he will give the county committees concerned an opportunity of expressing their views regarding the proposed purchase?
  The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE (Ireland) (Mr. T. W. Russell): All action of the Department in this matter has been, and is being, taken in consultation with the county committees concerned.

  Proposed Whaling Station (Mayo).
  Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), whether he has received protests from fishermen and others against the erection of a whaling station at Rusheen, on the coast of Mayo, and against whaling therefrom being permitted; if so, whether some of these objectors were informed by the Department that a public inquiry would probably be held before deciding on any application; whether he is aware that an inquiry was held on 23rd ultimo by two inspectors of the Department, and that these inspectors refused to hear any evidence from objectors on the ground that no formal objection in writing had been lodged with the Department, and intimated that they had already decided to grant the licence; and

  1667
  whether, in view of the importance of the matter to all interested in Irish fisheries, he will order a public inquiry to be held before sanctioning the station, due intimation of the same being given in Irish newspapers?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: The facts are substantially as stated in the question. At the inquiry the inspectors of fisheries felt themselves precluded from receiving a verbal objection then made to the granting of a licence for the station, inasmuch as the statutory requirements respecting the lodgment of objections had not been complied with, although attention had previously been drawn to the provisions bearing on the matter. All the circumstances of the case were fully considered, and it was decided to issue a licence for the whaling station. This was done on the 15th inst.

  Irish Land Bill Proposals.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Secretary to the Treasury what is the period calculated for the repayment of an advance under the proposals of the Irish Land Bill with respect to future purchase agreements if the amount of the annuity allocated to the sinking fund is 10s. per cent. and 5s. per cent. respectively, the rate of interest in each case being 3 per cent.?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): An advance of £100 would be repaid by half-yearly instalments of sinking fund at the rate of 10s. per annum, accumulating at 3 per cent. interest, in 65½ years, and at the rate of 5s. per cent. per annum in 86½ years. Under the proposals of the Irish Land Bill now before the House, the amount of the annuity allocated to the sinking fund is 10s. per cent.

  Pension Officers (Sick Leave).
  Viscount MORPETHasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will ascertain the number of pension officers who have applied for sick leave during the last five months?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It would throw considerable extra work upon the staff of the Department if I were to call for the information desired by the Noble Lord, and I do not think the figures when obtained would be of sufficient value to justify the trouble involved in obtaining them, as they would not indicate whether or not the illness were caused by overwork in connection with the old age pensions.

  Compassionate Allowance (Mrs. Mortishead).
  Viscount MORPETHasked what compassionate allowance has been paid to the widow of the late Mr. Mortishead, of Birmingham, whose death is attributed to the severity of the strain caused by overwork in dealing with old age pensions?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: A sum of £100 was granted from the Royal Bounty Fund to* the widow of the late Mr. Mortishead.

  Pension Officers (Conditions and Allowances).
  Viscount MORPETHasked if any alteration has been made in the conditions and allowances, as regards absence from home, in the case of officials whose duties are now connected with old age pensions; and, if so, in what respect are these conditions made more onerous, and from what causes?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Recent changes in the business of the Department have rendered it necessary to alter the system formerly in force with respect to travelling and subsistence allowances of supervisors and officers. In lieu of paid allowances actual travelling expenses necessarily incurred are now allowed, and subsistence allowance at the rate of 6s. a day when necessarily absent from residence more than eight hours. It is considered that these allowances meet the circumstances of the case.

  Excise and Customs Amalgamation.
  Mr. P. A. MEEHANasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can say how many officers are injuriously affected in salary and pension arising out of the amalgamation of the Excise and Customs Departments; whether he is aware that the enforced retirement of officers at the age of 60, but who have less than 40 years' service, injuriously affects their salary and pension, and if those officers whose length of service is between 38 and 39 years lose in salary £183 6s. 8d., and in pension £8 6s. 8d. per annum; and whether those officers, if efficient, will be permitted to continue in the service in order to complete the 40 years' service which would entitle them to full pension allowance?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No officers have been injuriously affected in salary in consequence of amalgamation. Ninety-four officers with less than 40 years' pensionable service have been retired or called upon to retire during the current financial year, but it is not possible to state how many of such retirements are due solely

  1669
  to amalgamation. The age for retirement in the Customs and Excise Service is usually 61, not 60, as stated in the question, and if an officer has not then completed 40 years' pensionable service he cannot be awarded the maximum pension. The reduction varies in amount with the officer's salary. I regret that I am unable to sanction the extension of service suggested in the final sentence of the question.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it not a fact that in the case where the officer has, say, 38f years' service his pension is calculated on 38 years' service, and no opportunity is given to complete 39 years' service?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is stating the case accurately. Where it is possible under circumstances like that the officer is given an opportunity of completing the extra year so as to get the increased pension.

  Walney Island (Morecambe Bay) Light.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any complaints have been made as to the position of the light at the south end of Walney Island, Morecambe Bay, and whether some steps will be taken to provide a fog signal there, in order to increase its general efficiency and thus reduce the danger now experienced in foggy weather to the numerous steamers engaged in the fishing and passenger traffic at the ports of Fleetwood, Barrow-in-Furness, and Heysham?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. H. J. Tennant): I have not received any complaints of the nature referred to by my hon. Friend. The light is a local light under the jurisdiction of the Port of Lancaster Commissioners, and the Board of Trade are communicating with that body and the Trinity House in regard to the latter part of the question. I shall be happy to inform my hon. Friend of the result of the communications.

  Export of Tinplates to United States.
  Mr. VIVIANasked the President of the Board of Trade if he could state the value of the exports of tinplates of British manufacture for each of the last five years to the United States and to countries other than the United States; and the value of the exports of tinplates of United States manufacture for each of the last five years to Great Britain, and to countries other than Great Britain?
  Mr. TENNANT: I will have a statement giving the information so far as available printed in the Votes, [See Written Answers this date.]
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Will he give the same figures for steel rails?
  Mr. TENNANT: I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman will find them in the Blue Book.

  County Councils (Cost of Education).
  Captain MORRISON-BELLasked the President of the Board of Education whether he received any estimates from county councils as to the extra cost entailed on the rates if the instructions in Board of Education Circular 709 are carried out; if so, what is the amount of the estimated cost?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): Only five county councils have stated to the Board the amount of the cost to the rates which they expect will be involved by the changes announced in Circular 709. In no case has a county council submitted to the Board a detailed estimate showing the effect of the circular in individual schools, and without such an estimate it is impossible to criticise the figures put forward by them. The Board have in one case been furnished with particulars unofficially, and will be very glad to consider any detailed calculations submitted to them. I may perhaps say that there has been some very wild estimating among local education authorities.

  Outworkers (Employment of Assistants).
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now considered the point raised by the decision of a Marlborough-street magistrate on 26th February, whereby outworkers employing any assistants were held to be contractors and thereby deprived of the protection afforded by the particulars section; whether the administration of this section, in so far as outworkers are concerned, is now in abeyance; and whether, in view of the time likely to elapse before a decision of the High Court can be given, with the chance of the magistrate's view being upheld, he can see his way to amend the statutory order in such a way that its application to this class of worker may be placed beyond all doubt?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Gladstone): Yes, Sir, the question of

  1671
  appealing against the decision of the magistrates has been considered, and I am advised that it is very doubtful whether an appeal would succeed. An alternative course would be that suggested in the question, namely, to amend the Order so as expressly to include these cases; and this is now under my consideration. I should add that it is not the case, as suggested in the question, that the administration of the section, so far as outworkers are concerned, is in abeyance, as a result of the magistrate's decision.

  Children Act (Sale of Intoxicants).
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the Secretary for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the system adopted in many places, since the Children Act came into operation, of parents with children being sold intoxicants outside licensed premises, usually on the pavement and street; and whether, seeing that licences granted to public-houses are applicable to the rooms and bars only over which the licensee has the right of control, he will say what steps he proposes to take, by legislation or otherwise, to prevent the sale and supply of drink in public places under such conditions?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I have no information to the effect indicated by the hon. Member. If, in fact, any person sells intoxicating liquor at any place where he is not authorised by his licence to sell it, he commits an offence against the licensing laws, e.g., section 3 of the Act of 1872. If any such illegal practice is brought to the notice of the Excise officers or of the police, I have no doubt that they will be ready to take all proper steps to enforce the law.

  Pension Officers (Extra Pay).
  Mr. EVELYN CECILasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer could see his way to reconsider his decision not to increase the extra pay promised to pension officers in consequence of the recent heavy work thrown upon them by the Old Age Pensions Act, considering that they appear to have worked on an average no less than 15 to 16 hours a day, not excluding Sundays and the Christmas holidays, during the three months ending 31st December, 1908?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE (replying for the Chancellor of the Exchequer): The right
  1672
  hon. Gentleman has repeatedly stated in reply to similar questions that he sees no reason for reconsidering this question.

  Afforestation (Commission's Report).
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the Prime Minister if he would state whether an early day can be given to discuss the Report of the Commission on Afforestation?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): In view of the state of public business, I am afraid that I cannot at present find a day.

  Strangers' Gallery, House of Commons.
  Mr. MENZIESasked the Prime Minister whether he would consider the advisability of arranging for the opening of the Strangers' Gallery under the old rules with the extra provision that the Member who introduces the stranger should undertake to pay a fine of £10 sterling in the event of the stranger disturbing the proceedings of the House?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have no power in the matter, but I will bring my hon. Friend's suggestion before Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. HENRY WATT: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the constituents of the hon. Member for South Lanark are of a very meek and well-behaved disposition, and that they are not likely to be called upon to pay the £10?

  Treasury Vote (Naval and Military Problems).
  Sir CHARLES DILKEasked the Prime Minister whether he could now inform the House on which allotted day of Supply he proposes to follow the precedent of 2nd August, 1904, in order to give the House the opportunity referred to by him on 13th July, 1908, afforded by the creation of Subhead E of the Treasury Vote, for the discussion of certain military and naval problems in their entirety?
  The PRIME MINISTER: In the event of there being a general desire to discuss the Votes referred to by my right hon. Friend, I shall be glad to put it down on one of the days allotted for Supply.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is likely to be taken before Whitsuntide?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I hope so; but I will consult the general wish of the House.

  Four Conditional Battleships.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to announce that the four conditional battleships will be laid down during the present financial year?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not at present in a position to add anything to the statement that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs recently made.

  Two-Power Naval Standard.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention had been called to the letter, dated the 14th April, addressed by the President of the Board of Trade to his constituents; whether this letter was written after consultation with other Members of the Government; and whether he will state the reasons which have led the Government to abandon the view that the two-Power standard is a workable formula to give effect to the maintenance of our superiority at sea, and to regard it as a formula which at the present moment has no meaning?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have seen the letter referred to, which was addressed by my right hon. Friend to his constituents, and, so far as I know, was not written after consultation with other Members of the Government. The Government have not abandoned the view that the two-Power Standard is a workable formula; nor does the statement of my right hon. Friend when read in its context appear to convey that suggestion.
  Mr. LONSDALE: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the statement that the two-Power standard is a workable formula with the statement of the President of the Board of Trade that it is devoid of meaning?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I pointed out that my right hon. Friend's statement must be read in connection with the context.

  Batteries of Artillery (Telephones).
  Mr. STAVE LEY-HILLasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the number of batteries of artillery now equipped with up - to - date telephonic communication; what methods of communication are employed in the absence of telephones; and what steps are being taken to supply telephones to the batteries at present without them?
  The HON. GENTLEMANfurther asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would state the number of batteries of artillery which practised on Salisbury Plain in 1908 which were in possession of telephones; how many batteries were without such means of communication; and whether any steps are being taken to make good the deficiency?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): Up-to-date telephonic equipment has been provided for the field artillery brigades of four divisions. Equipment is being obtained for the remaining field artillery brigades, howitzer brigades, and heavy batteries of the field army. Money has been taken in this year's Estimates for equipment for the horse artillery of the field army and the seventh division and for the field artillery brigades in South Africa. Pending distribution, the ordinary means of communication hitherto in use are employed. None of the batteries which practised at Salisbury Plain in 1908 had been provided with telephone equipment.

  Naval Readiness for War.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I had on the Paper yesterday a question which I was requested to postpone until to-day. It was No. 42 in yesterday's Paper, as follows:—Whether, in view of the disquieting statements which have been made concerning the disposition of the home fleets, their present strength in vessels other than battleships, and their general organisation to meet a condition of war, he will further consider the appointment of a Committee to report upon such matters?
  The PRIME MINISTER: A statement in regard to the readiness for war of the fleets in home waters during the last two years was recently submitted to me by Admiral Lord Charles Beresford. The points raised are about to form the subject of inquiry by a Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence, over which I shall preside. I may add that the Board of Admiralty concur in desiring such an inquiry.

  Lord Advocate's Meeting in Edinburgh.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him private notice. Is he aware that the Lord Advocate is to address a meeting at Edinburgh on the subject of the taxation of land values and the Budget, and whether the views to be enunciated in that address by the hon. and

  1675
  learned Gentleman are to be accepted as expressing the views of His Majesty's Government?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I understand the tickets for the meeting which the hon. Gentleman refers to were brought under the Lord Advocate's notice this morning for the first time. No doubt they were issued at a time when it was anticipated that the meeting would be held subsequently to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement. It is not, I am informed, the intention of the Lord Advocate to make any allusion to the Budget proposals in his speech to-morrow.

COURSE OF BUSINESS.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the Prime Minister indicated yesterday his intention of making a general statement about the immediate prospects of public business next week.
The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday next, the 26th instant, we propose to take as the First Order the Report of the Indian Councils Bill, and I hope we may be allowed to get the third reading by consent. We shall then proceed with a number of comparatively small Bills—the Board of Trade Bill, the second reading of which we failed to get the other night; the Board of Agriculture Bill, the Assistant Postmaster-General Bill, the Cinematograph Bill, and the Buildings and Engineering Works Bill. Tuesday, the 27th, we propose to make one of the allotted days of Supply, and the Post Office Vote will be put down first. On Wednesday, which is a half-day, we propose to take the second reading of the Trade Boards Bill. On Thursday, the 29th, the Budget Statement will be made, and following the usual practice, we shall propose to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule to enable the necessary Resolutions to be taken the same night.

PRESENTATION OF BILLS.
The following Bills were presented and read the first time:—
Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH—Dogs (Exemption)—Bill to exempt dogs from painful experiments. (To be read a second time, 28th April.)
Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT—Theatres and Music Halls—Bill to abolish the powers of the Lord Chamberlain in respect of stage
1676
plays, and to vest in local authorities the licensing of theatres, music halls, and places of public entertainment. (To be read a second time, 27th April.)
Mr. BEALE—Postal Packets (Lotteries).—Bill to confer on the Postmaster-General further powers to prevent the circulation of letters and postal packets relating to Lotteries. (To be read a second time. 18th May.)
Mr. RAWLINSON—Rule Committee.—Bill to amend the Judicature Acts, 1873 to 1894, with respect to the persons in whom the power of making Rules of Court under those Acts is vested. (To be read a second time, 26th April.)

MARINE INSURANCE (GAMBLING POLICIES) BILL.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Winston Churchill)asked leave to introduce, under the ten minutes Rule, a Bill to prohibit gambling on loss by maritime perils. The Bill which I now have to ask the leave of the House to introduce is strictly limited in its scope. But it is not, I think, devoid either of importance, or devoid of a certain element of urgency. Under the existing law, and as it has been for many years, as codified in the Marine Insurance Act, 1906, every contract of marine insurance, being in the nature of a gaming transaction or wager, is void; and a contract is deemed to be by way of gaming or wager within the meaning of the Act. If the insurance is made by a person who has not an insurable interest or no expectations of acquiring such an interest, or if a policy is made "interest or no interest," or "without further proof of interest than the policy itself," or "without benefit of salvage to the insurer" where salvage is possible, or other and similar circumstances, all these classes of insurance controls are embraced in the generic term, "P.P.I. Policy," because the insuring person does not require to prove any interest beyond holding the policy itself. All these contracts of marine insurance are void in law.
But if they are void in law, they are not void in fact. They are valid in fact. Marine insurance is declared by the Act to be a contract made in the utmost good faith, and underwriters are so careful of their reputations that P.P.I., or honour policies, though void in law, are in practice never repudiated. Therefore, to-day we find an extensive system of marine insurance, which, though based on no legal

1677
sanction, which, though enforced by no statutory authority, nevertheless enables the insuring persons to gather any advantages which may accrue to them from their policies with a regularity and a practical certainty indistinguishable from that certainty afforded by the operation of the law of the land.
What are the consequences of this? First of all, there are innocent and useful consequences which come from this practice. P.P.I. policies are taken out in some cases by persons who have a real interest, but who avail themselves of these as a convenient method for safeguarding that real interest. For instance, they may have a legitimate and insurable interest covered by valued policies, and this they supplement by a P.P.I. policy to make up the difference between the value already covered and the total value of the ship and cargo; or else these policies are taken out to insure interests which though real are difficult to prove. For instance, if a cargo of grain rises in value in crossing the sea, a P.P.I. policy may be taken out as the most convenient method of insuring the increased value of the venture. Different parties interested sometimes take out these policies to the better secure their respective profits. Lastly, these P.P.I. policies (against total loss only) rank at a lower rate of premium than is the case when damage risks are included. Mixed up with this necessary and legitimate business in policies which are void in law, there is, of course, doubtful and unhealthy business; large contracts in over-insurances and double insurances, for which P.P.I. are largely used. I have considered that part of the subject very carefully with my advisers, and I feel the difficulty of framing words which would discriminate between the different classes to which the P.P.I. policies refer, and that difficulty is too great for me at the present time to undertake. If, by a rough and clumsy hand, we were to prohibit at a stroke all honour policies, or P.P.I.'s, we should, I am advised, deprive the British shipping industry of a highly convenient process, a necessary process, and of what is in the nature of a valuable lubricant which, by custom and general acceptance in shipping circles, is used in the general transactions of business. But there is another set of consequences which are dangerous and harmful in the last degree. All these kind of honour policies to which I have referred are based upon some bonâfide interest on the
1678
part of the assured person in the ship or cargo, and are in harmony with the general assumption that marine contracts, marine insurances, should be based on the principle of indemnity, and that the party insured in such contracts stands to benefit by the safe arrival of the ship and cargo. Now, I ask the House to consider the P.P.I. policies which are effected by persons entirely unconnected with the ship or cargo, who can gain nothing by their safe arrival—who, in fact, only gain by their loss. Such insurances are gaming in the full and true sense of the term, and I would remind the House that this is gambling, not only with property, but gambling in human lives; gambling also in the reputation of the British mercantile marine. Take the case of the steamship "Firth of Forth," on which an inquiry was held in 1903. It was ascertained that a solicitor in Ireland, who was a cousin of the master, had speculative honour policies of £6,000, and that other speculative insurances had been effected, one by a Newcastle-on-Tyne gentleman—who, however, acquired shares in the company after the loss of the vessel—for £2,000, and other insurances for some thousands for an undisclosed principal. The case was a mysterious one, and the Court found that there was no evidence to show how the damages were caused. The case created considerable interest at the time, and the "Shipping Gazette" in commenting on the matter said:
"It must be obvious to all that to stand to make a large sum by the wreck of a ship or the loss of her cargo is not a contingency which makes for the greater safety of ships or the lives on board them."
Other disclosures arose out of the inquiry into the loss of the "Albion" in 1908. It was found that insurances had been effected by people who had no bonâfide interest, and these insurances amounted to no less than £12,000. This sum was made up of items ranging from £100 to between £3,000 and £4,000. A clerk at Cardiff had a policy for £3,200, and a Cardiff stevedore had a speculative policy for £2,000. He admitted that he had been in the habit of doing this class of business, and once before had succeeded in "spotting the winner." There is reason to believe that speculative insurance of this kind was common at Cardiff. The court expressed its strong disapprobation of these insurances. A more recent case is that of the "Oxus," into the loss of which an inquiry was held in October and November of last year. In the course of that inquiry it

1679
was found that a retired ship-master living in Cardiff had speculated in a policy of insurance for £1,000. He admitted that he had speculated in the same manner on four vessels previously, and made money on two of them. His insurances were against total loss only, and he said he selected his ships upon his own judgment, but the court remained unconvinced by the story of his wonderful intuition. The vessel foundered under circumstances of which no adequate explanation was given, and the court called attention to the fact that the impression evidently did exist in shipping and insurance circles that the "Oxus" was a "spotted ship"—i.e., that she was not unlikely some day to become a loss. The court also commented on the amount of talk that took place on board the "Oxus" during her last voyage as to the likelihood of her being lost.
This is the class of evil at which this Bill, which I ask the leave of the House to introduce, is directly and specifically aimed. We see a vessel heavily mortgaged and over-insured trading, perhaps, at a loss in a bad state of repair; she leaves port overloaded and undermanned, she carries a dangerous cargo, and we find that such a vessel, just in the same way as a wounded animal attracts the attention of the vultures, becomes the subject of insurance taken out by people who live far away from the sea, have nothing whatever to do with the adventure, who have no insurable or bonâ fide interest in the vessel, but who think that the ship is likely to be lost, and hope to win by its being lost. The consequence of this to ship owners is very injurious, because in many cases ships acquire a reputation of being "spotted ships," and become the subject of this gamble, and insurance premiums are raised against the ship owners. Humours are circulated which are very injurious to the masters of ships, because they arouse very often the foulest suspicion, sometimes without cause, against those responsible for the vessel. They are injurious to the seamen, because they increase the grave dangers of their perils by sea. Such are the evils which the Bill seeks to check. I am sure the House will be in full agreement with its objects. But in showing up the evil I also see the difficulty of dealing with it, and it is about the method of dealing with it that the opinion of the House must be carefully consulted. I have done my best to explore this subject, with the view of dealing effectively with the specific
1680
point to which this Bill refers. I held conferences during the last five months, not only with the legal experts, but with the great interests represented by the ship owners and the underwriters. Practically all the most important representative bodies in the shipping and insurance world have sent representatives to me to meet in conference with the Board of Trade, and I recognise with gratitude the assistance they rendered. We have considered the various drafts of this Bill before it reached the form in which I shall present it to the House, and I can say that we have come to a complete agreement not only upon the principles and object of the measure, but upon the general method of enforcement which has been selected.
The Bill proposes to make it a criminal offence for a person to effect a contract of marine insurance without having some bonâ fide interest or expectation of interest direct or indirect in the safety of the vessel or subject matter insured. Brokers and underwriters who are concerned in any such contract are also liable under this Bill to penalties if they had guilty knowledge. Proceedings are not to be instituted without the consent of the Attorney-General nor until the person alleged to have committed the offence has had an opportunity of clearing himself. If proceedings are instituted and the contract was made subject to the P.P.I. or any similar clause it will be necessary for the person who effected the contract to prove that he had a bonâfide interest in the safety of the subject matter insured. The reason for this provision (which is a vital one) is that otherwise it would be necessary for the prosecution to prove a negative—namely, that the accused person had no interest. That being so, I shall ask that this small Bill may have the generous consideration of the House. It is just the sort of measure which runs great risk of being jostled out of the way in the crush of any Parliamentary Session unless it has a few friends in every quarter of the House, and unless the House is disposed, in view of the element of urgency which unquestionably exists, to see that it is passed. I beg to move.
Mr. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: When will the Bill be in the hands of Members?
Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope next week.
Motion made and Question put: "That leave be given to bring in a Bill "To prohibit gambling on loss by marine perils."—Agreed to.
Bill presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next.

SUPPLY.

  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made and Question proposed: "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

ARTERIAL DRAINAGE IN IRELAND.
Mr. THOMAS F. SMYTHproposed, as an Amendment, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "in the opinion of this House, the question of the arterial drainage of Ireland is one of great magnitude and supreme urgency; the floodings by the great rivers and their tributaries are causing annual widespread destruction of property, grave and permanent injury to public health, outbreaks of virulent diseases, and are a standing menace to the lives of the people; that several Royal Commissions have proved the existence of the evils and their disastrous consequences, and that it is impossible for local effort to cope with the evils or mitigate them; and that, as it is the duty of any Government to protect the lives and property of the people, this House demands that the Government should introduce and pass into law a measure embodying a comprehensive arterial drainage scheme for Ireland."
In moving the Motion that stands in my name, I desire to say that it is one of the Motions on which Members from all parts of Ireland, no matter whether they come from Ulster or elsewhere, are in complete agreement. The question of arterial drainage is a very large and comprehensive one, and unless it is taken up and handled by the Government it cannot otherwise be dealt with as it is outside the scope of local control. Looking at the Drainage Acts of 1842 and 1853, it is quite clear from their interpretation that it is absolutely necessary that there should be some legislation upon the subject, and that a Bill should be introduced by the Government to deal with this very important question. It is also necessary owing to the Act of 1863, which was an Act which provided that private boards shall be formed by the local landlords to deal with this matter, that now as the land of
1682
Ireland is passing from the landlords to the tenants there should be some further legislation upon the subject. Various Motions have been made from time to time to deal with this subject, and Commissions have been appointed, including the Viceregal Commission of 1905, presided over by Sir Alexander Binnie. Very little was done after the unanimous recommendation of this Commission. I do not think we ever got any more forward than the Reports of these Commissions. Attention was called time and again by various Members of the Nationalist party for the past 25 years to this subject. It would be well in connection with legislation on this subject that some such body as the Department of Agriculture should be placed in actual control of this business, and that local county councils or other bodies should have authority to strike a rate for local drainage and for works in connection with it. The different rivers of Ireland are much in need of drainage, and it is absolutely impossible to do anything for the tributaries unless the sources are first dealt with. In many cases it often happens after a heavy rainfall, the water coming down from the mountainous districts is more than the rivers are able to take away, and the water comes back again and inundates the low lands. The sources of these rivers should be dealt with before the tributaries if any effective work is to be done. It is absolutely useless for the farmer to try and drain his land if nothing is done to deal with the river which takes off that water. Floods very often occur from the heaps of sand, or rocks, or other impediments in the beds of rivers. If these were removed, it would do a great deal to improve matters. Great losses have occurred to the farmers in different districts owing to periodical floodings. In my own district I find that the River Shannon and its tributaries do a vast amount of injury to the farmers. I have seen thousands of acres of land in the harvest time of the year flooded, and the hay and other crops have been absolutely ruined. In this way thousands of pounds damage is being done annually to the farmers of Ireland. I asked the President of the Board of Trade last year a question with a view of having a portion of the Tarmonbarry weir lowered, and the reply I received was that it would interfere with the navigation of the Shannon. Navigation on the Shannon is very small and insignificant in comparison with the amount of damage which is done from

1683
year to year owing to the flooding of the Shannon and its tributaries. If this weir were sunk it would be very easy to deal with the question of the drainage. There are other districts in Ireland equally as bad in this respect as the districts affected by the Shannon and its tributaries, but they will no doubt be referred to by other hon. Members for Ireland who know the circumstances very well. In addition to the amount of injury which has been done from time to time in connection with flooding, and the consequent injuring of crops, various diseases have sprung up in Ireland such as tuberculosis and rheumatism, owing to the dampness of the country, and if the country was thoroughly drained we have been assured that those diseases would entirely disappear. I think we ought to express our deep debt of gratitude to the Countess of Aberdeen for the efforts she has made to eradicate tuberculosis, and I hope success will crown her efforts.
Hon. Members are aware what occurred last January in county Galway when there was not only loss of life, but also a great destruction of property by bog slidings. They occur in county Kerry, county Galway, and other parts of Ireland, but if there was a system of arterial drainage carried out it would be the means of preventing bog-sliding, and it would relieve the people of those districts of anxiety with regard to their lives, and they would feel more secure that they would not suffer loss through the destruction of their property. In different Continental countries like Holland and Germany we find that large sums of money are spent by the Government from time to time in dealing with questions of arterial drainage. In those countries it is in the interests of good government that drainage should be carried out thoroughly. If Ireland were governed by Irishmen instead of by England a sufficient sum of money would be got together for this purpose as well as for other purposes. Unfortunately we are not allowed to make our own laws or to be governed by Irishmen. In my opinion the sum of £10,000,000 would be sufficient for a scheme of arterial drainage. This is a very small sum in comparison with the amounts devoted to other purposes. We do not ask for this money as a free grant, but simply as a return of some of our own money. When the Liberal Government were in power in 1894 a Royal Commission was appointed to deal with financial relations, and during the
1684
investigations of that Commission it was shown that Ireland was overtaxed by £3,000,000. If we get a refund of that sum for three or four years it would be sufficient to deal with this question of arterial drainage, and it would leave the country much more prosperous. So long as Ireland is governed by England I think it is the duty of the Government to look after the welfare and prosperity of the people, and see that Irish interests are promoted as far as possible. If the country was drained it would have the effect of raising the temperature, and this would be of great benefit to the farmers of the country, who would obtain better crops and be able to produce more cereals, and that would be a great benefit to Ireland as well as to England, because this country would then be able to get a good deal of wheat from Ireland instead of from other countries. This is a question which cannot be dealt with without Imperial grants, and I hope that the Government will see their way to deal with this subject, which is so necessary to promote the prosperity and health of the people. I beg to move.
Mr. P. A. MEEHAN (Queen's County): I rise to second the Motion moved by my hon. Friend. Little, if anything, can be said on this most important subject which has not been said before in the many debates which have taken place for the last 50 years, and which, up to the present hour, have borne only "Dead-Sea fruit." The question of arterial drainage in Ireland is one of enormous magnitude and vital importance. It affects not alone the property, but the health and the lives of the people. The climate of the whole of Ireland is injuriously affected by flooding from the Shannon, Barrow, Bann, and other rivers and their tributaries. I do not think I can do better than read to the House a very short extract from the evidence given before the Spenser Castletown Commission by Dr. McCabe, Medical Inspector for the Local Government Board. He says:—
"The climate would be improved and temperature raised by effectual drainage. The catchment area of the Barrow was 3,400 square miles, 600 square miles was subject to flooding. The present conditions favour the development of constitutional diseases, pulmonary phthisis (consumption), bronchial and cartarrhal affections, lowered conditions of the vital powers, acute and chronic rheumatic diseases, with, to the labouring poor, all disabling consequences, chronic rheumatism in cattle and liver-rot in sheep."
I think that this extract from the report of an eminent authority is sufficient to show the House the danger not alone to the public health of the people in the district, but that there is a possible injury to

1685
the public health of all Ireland. The state of things which Dr. McCabe described existed 23 years ago and the people have had to suffer all that up to the present hour. The consciences of this Government and consecutive Governments have never been stirred in the direction of relieving the people from the misery, the sickness and premature death which ensue from the conditions of the Bann and other rivers in Ireland. I wish the House thoroughly to understand the question. What are the present conditions in the flooded areas of the Barrow, the river with which I am particularly concerned, although our sympathies are not confined to particular boundaries? Our demand is for all Ireland. We feel the suffering of our fellow countrymen in the neighbourhood of the Bann as much as we feel the sufferings of those in the vicinity of the Barrow. For our countrymen, be their politics whatever they may be, we demand a remedy for all. What is the condition of the Barrow at the present moment? While we are debating this question, I have just received a description of the condition which prevails in the valley of the Barrow. In the district of Mountmellick, on the 4th of April, a correspondent tells me, "about half the town were up all night hurrying to and fro carrying pigs and fowl and driving cattle to safe quarters out of their houses. On Sunday, the 5th inst., it was pitiable to hear the wail of the people bemoaning their losses, as they pointed to their gardens, just after being sown, covered with water. These gardens will have to be resown. The capacity of the Barrow is so limited that although it is now 12 days since the flood, there are still hundreds of acres of water to be seen." Here is another passage: "The relief committee of our town dispensed in relief towards the sufferers from the repeated floods a sum of £170. Over £100 of this was spent in relief work, banking, and removing timber from the bed of the river, and there was a hope that the flooding in our district would be mitigated, but it proved of no avail in the last flood. In the surrounding districts acres of corn have to be resown, the water lying on the land so long." Again, at a meeting held at Portarlington on 21st April, 1909, it was stated that
"No crops can be sown since the late rains, and seeds put into the ground before the late rains must be ploughed up again. The pasturage has been destroyed by the floods, all the fodder is consumed, and the cattle are starving."
I will not quote more from letters; but I think I have shown sufficiently that a
1686
deplorable condition of things prevails in the Valley of the Barrow at the present moment. Is there no remedy for this state of things? We are not talking of a country a thousand miles away, but of a state of things in Ireland, and this state of things does not occur during an interval of years but it is of annual occurrence. Some years are worse than other years. We are describing a state of things which prevails every year, and we demand the remedy for that state of things. Agriculture is the principal industry of Ireland, and anything which injuriously affects this industry injuriously affects the whole population. Not only is there an annual destruction of crops in particular localities, but the evil extends all over the country. In view of the heavy burdens and obligations which have been cast upon the people to provide crops, it is the duty of the Government to find a remedy for the evils which exist. My hon. Friend who moved the Motion referred to the fact that other countries have been alive to the necessity which exists for effecting arterial drainage. This has been the case in Belgium. Germany, Holland, and Hungary. These countries have spent many millions to provide thorough and sufficient arterial drainage, but in Ireland arterial drainage has been utterly neglected. It is true that spasmodic efforts have been made from time to time, but those efforts have proved utterly futile. Petitions and memorials, resolutions from public bodies and from every section of the country, have been framed to such an extent that if they existed in a concrete form they would bridge the Atlantic Ocean. The evidence before the Royal Commissions which were appointed on the subject would fill many volumes, but the Reports are never opened by those whose business it is to investigate the wants of Ireland. The Barrow and the Bann and the Shannon are worse today than they were 50 years ago. There have been several Commissions, and I assert that these Reports contain the most damning condemnation of successive Governments by reason of their failing to provide a remedy for evils which are admitted to exist. They convict those who are responsible for the Government of Ireland of callous indifference to human suffering and the destruction of the health and property of the people. With the exception of the Bill brought in by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London in 1888 no legislative effort has been made to deal with this question, although it affects the

1687
people of the North as well as it does the Nationalists. The Members from Ireland unite on this subject on a common platform, and they demand a remedy. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland to remember that we do not stand here appealing for a dole or a charity from the Imperial Exchequer. It is our exchequer as well as yours. We demand our rights. You insist upon governing Ireland. We demand that you should meet your obligations, and all Ireland makes a demand for a remedy. We demand our own money, at least some portion of it, in order to preserve the health and promote the prosperity of the people.
A committee of financial experts proved some years ago that Ireland is overtaxed to the extent of something like £3,000,000 a year. I do not know the amount that will be necessary for a complete scheme of arterial drainage. The sum of £10,000,000 was mentioned by my hon. Friend, but that rather exceeds the amount which I think will be absolutely necessary for the work. But whatever sums are necessary, it is the duty of those charged with the government of Ireland to provide them. We ask the Government to pass this Session money from the taxation of Ireland. It may be one year's taxation, and pending the introduction of a measure we ask the Government to advance sufficient money to remedy the evils which admittedly exist.
I will deal briefly with the condition of things which affects the constituency which I have the honour to represent. It is admitted by general consent that the state of things caused by the condition of the Barrow is the most extensive and destructive in Ireland. Thousands of pounds have been collected by the people in the Valley of the Barrow for the purpose of providing engineering reports, constructing embankments and other things, but the embankments have been swept away just as a straw is swept on a windy day. It has been proved by several Commissions that the drainage of the Barrow is a work of Imperial concern. The existing drainage Acts have been applied in some districts on the tributary rivers, but are abortive whilst the main outfall remains closed. One tributary stream is as flooded to-day as it was 50 years ago. Embankments put up by the occupiers are swept away. Public bridges and roads are damaged, and sometimes rendered impassable for many days. The
1688
county councils cannot spend a shilling in preventing floods—they can only build a bridge or remake a road when either, or both, are destroyed. It is a very serious matter; but it throws a light upon a good deal of the failure of the legislative measures of this House, and on the attempt of one country to legislate or govern successfully another country. The county council of Queen's County were unable to spend a shilling on any work in the bed of the river which would protect a bridge; but on several occasions they have had to rebuild bridges and have had 500 yards or 600 yards of the roadway swept away, costing the ratepayers hundreds of pounds, which might have been spared had they had the authority to spend money for preventing floods. I have shown that the people are alive to the necessity for self-effort, and that they are anxious if opportunity were given them to remove the evils, but so long as the Government of the country neglects its first essential duty to protect the lives and property of the people—so far as they neglect to remove the obstructions—so long will all the efforts of the people be futile to protect their property. The River Barrow from its source to Athy, county Kildare, is 47 miles, and from. Athy to the tidal waters of St. Mullins, county Carlow, is a little over 43 miles. The flooded area is mainly within the 47 miles from the source to Athy, and the area of flooded and injured lands as given in the Spencer-Castletown Report in January, 1886, is as follows:—

County Kildare

16,619 acres

Queen's County

15,717 acres

Kings's County

13,147 acres

The area has increased in 23 years. Mr. Manning, the inspector under the Board of Works, reported the area then as 50,000 acres—increased value £17,000 per annum. The flooded area has much increased. What was good feeding and fattening land 15 years ago worth many shillings per acre is not worth 1s. per acre to-day, and the evil will extend. The people of themselves cannot provide a remedy. In March, 1885, the Viceregal Commission to which I have referred was appointed, and I would just trouble the House with one or two extracts from the Report of the Commission, which was under the chairmanship of Sir Alexander Binnie. The Airport Commission reported in 1887. In 1888 and 1889 the Chief Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, brought in a Bill for the drainage of the Barrow, the estimated cost being £360,000

1689
—£215,000 of a free grant from Parliament, the balance, £145,000, to be charged on the area benefited by the drainage works. There were many objections, the principal being that the scheme was one of embankment, with slight excavation. Embankment was considered dangerous, as if its water level was raised it would flood lands heretofore free from injury. The right hon. Gentleman, speaking on the occasion, said:—
"The Barrow remains the chief example of the incident to the want of arterial drainage in Ireland."
I commend that statement, made by the right hon. Gentleman 23 years ago, to the right hon. Gentleman who is now responsible for the government of Ireland. The Bill fell through. On 1st September, 1905, the Arterial Drainage Commission, under the chairmanship of Sir Alexander Binnie, was appointed, and reported in 1907 that the evidence given before the Castletown Commission proved that the domestic water supply of the whole district was injured, and in the important towns of Mountmellick, Portarlington, Monasterevan, and Athy, with an aggregate population of close on 10,000 persons, the domestic water supply was polluted and proper sewerage for the towns impossible, with the result of grave and permanent injury to public health and constant outbreaks of virulent diseases, the sick and dying having to be attended by the medical officers and ministers of religion with from six to twelve inches of water on the floors, and this not one year in ten, but every year, some years in a lesser degree than others.
The following short extracts are from the Report of the Arterial Drainage Commission of 1907:—
"For fifty years the state of the Barrow has been the subject of acute complaint, but although many proposals for remedy have been put forward, and one legislative attempt made, which, unfortunately, proved abortive, nothing save the making of surveys, maps, plans and estimates has yet been done either by the State or by a combination of owners towards the curing or even the mitigation of the evils complained of, whilst we have abundant testimony that the flooding, and the consequent injury, are growing greater year by year. The case of this river basin differs from others in Ireland, once similarly circumstanced, in that no expenditure by the State has ever taken place, although the task of clearing the main outfall is manifestly far beyond the reach of private enterprise. We, therefore, feel that the case of the Barrow calls for exceptional and early treatment, and the existence of the surveys, maps, plans, etc., already referred to removes any difficulty that might otherwise exist in taking such action. As regards this river, we feel bound from our personal inspection and the evidence we received, to emphatically endorse the observations of the Allport Commission, viz.: 'The upper portion of the catchment area of the river Barrow, extending down to Athy, contains an area of 408,000 acres, of which 46,000 are flooded or injured by floods. The basin of the Upper Barrow suffers more from floods than any other part of Ireland As shown
1690
in the figures given above the proportion which the lands flooded and injured bears to the whole catchment area is exceptionally high, the length of time during which large tracts are covered with water is often considerable, and there are several low-lying towns within the limits of the river basin, which suffer both directly and indirectly from inundations. Altogether the condition of the district may be described as deplorable'"
I earnestly commend these extracts to the right hon. Gentleman, and I ask him in the name of those suffering people who so long have been without hope of a remedy and unable to help themselves, and I ask him in the name of justice to relieve these people and to give them some cause to hope that he at all events will attempt to remedy this crying evil. I will just refer very briefly now to the evils arising from the flooding under two heads: (1) As it affects the health of the occupiers and the public health, not alone of the flooded and catchment area, but of the whole country; and (2) the injury to public works, bridges, roads, etc., and the annual injury to and destruction of property; and I will deal more particularly with the partial remedy which the drainage committee of the county council have placed before the right hon. Gentleman. Speaking on 10th November, 1900, at a meeting of the county council's drainage committee, the Rev. Father Kavanagh, P.P., Monasterevan, said:—
"The result of the flood in Monasterevan was an epidemic which affected 60 families."
Take it that each family on an average consists of five or six people, and you observe the number of the people who are affected by disease through the flood at Monasterevan. The Rev. Canon Smethwick, rector, bore similar testimony. He knew the district 25 years, and endorsed all that had been said as to the prejudicial effect of the floods on the town and district. The Rev. Father O'Leary, P.P., Portarlington, said:—
"The clergy and doctors have to attend the sick and dying with sometimes eight to ten inches of water in the honse. The suffering of the people and the injury to their health is indescribable. The loss of property caused by the Barrow floods would buy out the flooded area again and again. The amount of suffering, sickness and misery is incalculable."
The Rev. Canon Cole, rector, Portarlington, said:—
"The condition of the town and district is deplorable: the poor especially were subject to the evil effects of the flooding. A large number of houses flooded, the inmates having to be carried out in carts and boats, some too ill to be moved have to remain. The people were by this state of things driven out of the town and out of the country."
I have already quoted Dr. McCabe, and I will now just quote one or two medical officers as to the flooded area of the

1691
Barrow. Dr. Neal, medical officer, Mountmellick Union and Dispensary, says:—
"The public health of the district seriously injured, houses rendered unfit for human habitation. The town cannot be drained. Malarious vapours, impure water supply causing typhoid fever."
Dr. Hanton, Portarlington:—
"The flooding of the town and district is getting worse every year. It causes fevers, rheumatism, scarlatina, asthma, inflammation of the lungs. I have kept a register for 43 years, diseases are increasing."
Dr. Tabuteau, medical officer, Portarlington Dispensary district:—
"The district has been under my charge for 15 years, it is damaged and injured to a wonderful extent by the continual flooding of the Barrow. As regards the health of the town, I have seen 40 houses and more flooded continuously by the Barrow to the extent of three to five inches of water, I have attended persons lying sick, with water four inches deep around the bed, and I, myself, standing on a chair. Damp bad vapours exhale from the earthen floors, the floods drive the sewage back into the wells from which the domestic water supply is got. There are considerable outbreaks of typhoid of a most virulent type, and epidemics of scarlatina. The floods are increasing, so is the damage to the public health of the district."
Dr. Derby, medical officer, Monasterevan Dispensary district, states:—
"There can be no proper sewerage for the town, the water in the river is even in summer higher than the sewers. I have observed the public health is injured, illness has increased, especially lung diseases; in portions of my district I have counted 158 houses flooded."
Dr. Joseph Kilbride, medical officer, Athy Union and Dispensary districts, and this is the last quotation I will trouble the House with, says:—
"My district extends seven miles up the river in the direction of Monasterevan, and five miles down in the direction of Carlow. Part of my district is extremely unhealthy. The diseases prevalent are chronic rheumatism of a virulent character, diphtheria, and typhoid fever; lung disease is very prevalent. These diseases are owing in a great measure to the condition of the land on account of the flooding of the Barrow. A large portion of the district is permanently under water. Even in summer, except a very dry summer, the cabins never become dry. The sewerage of the town cannot he carried out effectively owing to the fact that the high water drives back the sewage matter and the soil and pumps become impregnated in a great measure by that means."
That was the lamentable condition of the district in the area of the Barrow 23 years ago, and I do not exaggerate the case when I say that it has increased by 20 or 30 per cent. since those words were spoken by the medical officers.
I do not propose to go into any lengthy detail with reference to the loss of property which the people have sustained. It is an annual loss, and the total of it is enormous. Injury to the corn crop and the root crop takes place, and disease among cattle is prevalent all over the district. I will just quote one or two cases
1692
as showing the loss which the people have to suffer. The question arises, if this state of things continues, how are the people to discharge their obligations, how are they to pay their rent, their annuities, and the demands for local taxation if this destruction of their property is allowed to continue, and if their holdings are allowed to be seriously affected by flooding. That is a question which I hope the Chief Secretary will give very great attention to, because if we find by and by that the people in the flooded area of the Barrow lose hope that the Government are going to provide a remedy, and they recognise the fact that up to the present the Government have failed to recognise their obligations and discharge their duty, it will be small blame to the people in the flooded area of the Barrow if they say they will follow the example of the Government and that they will repudiate their obligations, and neither pay rent nor taxes until the Government fulfil their duty. I will take the cases of these tenants in two town lands, where the drainage committee have got the people to keep a record of their losses since 1901 up to 1905. I take the case of one tenant in that district, and during the five years he has lost cattle of the value of £94, a hay crop of the value of £157, corn of the value of £80, root crops to the value of £55, and, altogether, his total loss during five years amounts to £439 on a farm of 70 acres. Another tenant has lost, and this return is only made for a period of three years, £127 10s., and the whole loss of ten tenants in two small town lands, whose returns I have been furnished with, in these five years, amounted to £2,008. In the whole district the loss is £10,000 to £15,000 per annum. I say that it is a matter for very serious consideration by those who are responsible for the government of Ireland, whether they will allow this state of things to continue. The remedy which a drainage committee of the county councils proposed has been put before the right hon. Gentleman. In October, 1900, the county councils of Kildare, King's County, Queen's County, and Carlow appointed delegates and held a conference, with the object of promoting the drainage of the Barrow. A joint committee was appointed by this conference, and this committee consists of the representatives of the four county councils mentioned, of the district councils, of the town commissions, the Catholic and Protestant clergymen, and the medical officers of health within the flooded area. It is a

1693
committee which is deserving of public respect and esteem.
This committee continues in existence, and have made certain proposals embodying a request that pending a thorough arterial drainage scheme for Ireland, a grant of £50,000 should be immediately given and expended on certain works in the Barrow area under this joint committee. Mr. Bryce was then the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and he approved of this. He was in hearty sympathy with it, but unfortunately he failed to produce the money. He endeavoured to get the money both from the Agricultural Board and from other sources, but I am sorry to say he failed. I believe I am correct in saying that the present Chief Secretary has a genuine and unbounded sympathy with us, in endeavouring to find a remedy for this state of things, but the right hon. Gentleman has urged the impossibility of getting the money, and recently he, acting I presume on the information of the Irish Board of Works, expressed a doubt as to the efficacy of the plan submitted by the County Councils Committee. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I am not surprised, and I do not think any of my colleagues with any knowledge of the Irish Board of Works are surprised, to find that that body, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman, "do not think much of our scheme." I never knew, in my experience of 30 years of all parts of Ireland—I never knew this Board to approve of any project initiated by a popularly elected body, and of any scheme which would dispense with red tape and circumlocution. The Board of Works have left all over Ireland monuments of blundering, bungling, and incapacity. The late Member for Cavan, Mr. Joseph Biggar, in a Debate in this House on 2nd July, 1888, gave a Litany of the misdeeds of this Board, which could be amplified a hundredfold by everybody in Ireland who has any knowledge of public boards in Ireland. The County Councils Committee, appointed in the manner I have described, asked the Board of Works to let them have access to the plans, maps, and specifications in their custody, and which were provided out of public money. The drainage committee representing the four counties named asked for this information, and, although they were representing the people of those counties, the Board of Works gave them a point-blank refusal of any such information. The secretary of the drainage committee, arising out of a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman when he
1694
received a deputation in connection with the Barrow drainage, acting on the instructions of his committee, wrote to the Board of Works offering to supply them with any information they might require in regard to the scheme put forward by the County Councils Committee, and, on 1st March last, an official of the Board of Works writes as follows:—
"I am directed by the Commissioners of Public Works to refer to your letter of the 18th ultimo, quoting from the reply of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the question by Mr. John O'Connor, M.P., on the subject of the scheme of Messrs. Glover and White for the drainage of the river Barrow."
They are the county surveyors for Kildare and King's county, and are associated with the drainage committee, and are familiar with their plan. The letter proceeds:—
"I am to state that any information that the Barrow Drainage Committee might give at the present time would only be of use as a preliminary to an investigation by this Board and a land valuer into the engineering and economic merits of the scheme."
Therefore, it comes about that until the Barrow Drainage Committee convince the Board of Works that this is an economic work, and satisfies them on the merits of our scheme, the voices of the representatives of the people are valueless, and nothing can be done until this high and mighty Board in Dublin are satisfied of the efficacy of this scheme. I say that that letter shows the spirit in which this Irish department regards local effort on behalf of the representative Boards of the country to remedy the lamentable state of things now prevailing. The work which the Joint Committee proposed to accomplish in the Barrow was mainly the removal of silt from the bed of the river, opening up the natural course of the water. Perhaps I may say that the natural bed of the Barrow, for many miles at a stretch both in King's county and Kildare, has become completely filled with silt that accumulates at one time or another. These accumulations have remained there; and the plan proposed by the County Councils Committee was the removal of these accumulations of silt, which would open up the waterway and relieve the flooded districts. Large islands are forming in this river, and the largest and most injurious one at Monasterevan is about 8,000 square yards. This causes the largest floods and greatest injury. Sir Alexander Binnie when he was holding his investigation had an opportunity of visiting the river and of forming an opinion as to the value of the work proposed by the Committee, and Sir Alexander Binnie, referring to the work

1695
proposed to be done by the County Councils Committee, said the work proposed
"Was of a permanent and beneficial character, and one of the first works to be done under any scheme of drainage."
And the following extract from the Commission's Report proves the utility and beneficial character of the plan:—
"Smaller sums than those hitherto estimated might, as in the case of the River Barrow, be expended with advantage, provided that they were devoted to the purpose of specific works, forming part of a general and comprehensive scheme of improvement."
We say that the £50,000 for the removal of the accumulations of silt is a work of a permanent and beneficial character. It is a work aproved by competent engineering authorities, and commended by the chairman of the 1897 Royal Commission, and the report of the county engineers of Queen's County, King's County, and Kildare, who prepared this plan, is as follows—I hope I am not trespassing on the time of the House, because the necessity for a remedy is so acutely felt, and their grievance is so urgent that we must avail of every possible opportunity and consume; whatever time we may think necessary to try to bring about a reform. The engineers say that if the waterway of the Barrow for 39 miles were restored to its original state, acute flooding would disappear. This means the removal of shoals and islands already formed, or in process of formation, the rectification of the banks, which in many places almost meet, and the removal of trees and shrubs. It would also mean the removal of two small weirs and a bridge, and the underpinning of another bridge. The cost of all the preceding work would be about £34,000 including contingencies. By this expenditure alone we believe a large extent of land would be greatly relieved from flooding.
The engineers gave in detail the estimate for the expenditure of £50,000. We do not for a moment say that this expenditure is going to be a sufficient solution of the whole question, but it will remove the acute danger of flooding from the towns mentioned, and it will remove the necessity of using water which is polluted by the floods and sewage matter being driven back on to the towns, and while it will not, I admit, add much to the value of the land for some years, at all events, the work we propose is a permanent work and a portion of a general drainage scheme, and as such we ask the right hon. Gentleman to obtain for us the means of doing this work and relieving the people from the dangers and
1696
difficulties under which they at present exist.
The right hon. Gentleman has passed through the House a Tuberculosis Bill a short time ago containing penal clauses compelling people to notify the disease and to isolate cases. The Government, by its neglect, create and maintain the disease breeding ground in the flooded area of the borough, and it is a mockery to the people to put them under penal restrictions under this Bill and to deny them a remedy by removing the chief cause of the disease from which they suffer. How is a poor labouring man living in a two or three-room cottage to isolate a member of his family who may be stricken by tuberculosis? It is not possible to do it. The Government retain that breeding ground of diseases, and then they punish people because they become sick. The right hon. Gentleman has solved a problem of greater difficulty than this which has been waiting for solution for over a century, and has emancipated the mind of the Catholic youth of Ireland and given it an opportunity of University education of which they can conscientiously avail, and we ask the right hon. Gentleman to emancipate these people on the flooded rivers in Ireland from the continual distress, misery, and suffering to which they have been too long subject. What message are my colleagues and myself to take home to our people? Are my colleague the hon. Member for Ossory and myself to follow the example of our predecessors, who in despair of a remedy went to Ireland and raised a tithe agitation until the conscience of the Government of that day was touched? It was only when blood stained the soil of Ireland that they provided a remedy. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give us some measure of hope to carry to our people, and that this Debate will not end, as many another Debate has, without some hope of a remedy for our grievance, and that we may tell our people that some period at last will be put to the misery and suffering which they have too long and too patiently borne.
Mr. HAVILAND BURKE: The question of arterial drainage in Ireland is not one which we can naturally expect to arouse keen excitement in the mind of the average Englishman. I am sure, for instance, if this afternoon's discussion had been one upon Irish affairs which might result in a pitched battle between hon. Members from Ulster and my colleagues on these benches we should have had a

1697
very much larger attendance on both sides. Much is made of Irish discord, but very little account is taken in this country of Irish accord, and when Irishmen come of different creeds and different parties substantially, as I believe we are, united on the question of Irish drainage we can expect nothing but the ghost of the House we should get if we were coming down here with every probability of having what is called a good Irish row. At the same time I think the urgency of the legislation called for by the Resolution has been admitted by several Royal Commission Reports and the last one issued is only one of a series.
I think not the least of Irish grievances is that while we may be prepared to admit that the mass of the English people are more or less totally ignorant of Ireland and its circumstances, Parliament at any rate cannot plead any such ignorance in defence of its neglect and delay in dealing with Irish grievances. In fact, I think sometimes the whole trouble between England and Ireland is enormously aggravated by the fact that Irishmen cannot be ignorant that the leading Englishmen of all English parties are, and for many long years past have been, perfectly acquainted with the state of affairs in Ireland, and that they have failed to act according to their knowledge. For instance, after the Act of Union we had 70 years of wretchedness and Royal Commissions in Ireland before Parliament made its first halting, feeble, and unsuccessful attempt to step in for the protection of the tenants against the cruel wrongs inflicted upon them and denounced and proved by the Reports of Royal Commission after Royal Commission from the days of Wellington down to those of Gladstone; and yet Parliament took no notice. What tempts me to support the Resolution is this. The question that the Resolution asks is: "Are you going to allow the question of arterial drainage to be followed on the same old put-off-the-evil-day-till-to-morrow lines with which Parliament dealt to its cost and its trouble with the Irish Land question? This latest Report of a Commission, appointed, I believe, under the late Government, agrees with its several predecessors absolutely in one thing; it says the matter of Irish arterial drainage is a matter of public urgency. It says that the mischief has steadily increased, is steadily increasing, and will continue to increase, and it recommends a bold, general, and comprehensive scheme of arterial drainage, while not discoun-
1698
tenancing, but, on the contrary, rather recommending special schemes for such afflicted districts as the Barrow—districts the details of which have been so ably described to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County. The truth is that in these problems in Ireland we have always to remember one thing, and that is that the neglect of an evil never remains stationary. The neglect of an evil is like the neglect of a wound. It spreads, and the longer it festers and the more it spreads the bigger the doctor's bill you have to pay in the long run. Just as I firmly believe that if in the case of the Irish land question Parliament had boldly and bravely grappled with it on the Report of the Devon Land Commission in 1843, Ireland would have been spared untold misery, and British Governments would have been spared untold trouble, so I believe if you allow this Irish arterial main drainage question to linger on with more Commissions and inquiries, and Blue Books, and more pigeon-holes to put the Blue Books into, you will be compelled to deal with the question in the long run and at far greater cost than would be incurred if it were satisfactorily settled at the present time. I sometimes think that the average Englishman, no matter how good a fellow he may be, is too apt to talk of the clamour of Irish politicians and of the difficulty that exists in meeting Irish demands, while he entirely forgets that in the past four-fifths of the difficulties could have been dispensed with when dealing with Irish questions if they had only been dealt with in a good spirit and in good time.
I shall not dwell upon the condition of the Barrow district beyond a few minutes, because I am sure my hon. Friends will re-echo my sentiments when I say that we do not wish Orange and Protestant farmers in Ulster to be swamped out of their farms and houses any more than that Catholic farmers should be swamped out of theirs. The Barrow district is suggested by this Report as being an exceptional case which might deserve exceptional and primary treatment. It says, for instance, that the Barrow drainage question has been an acute one for half a century. It points out that its condition, both agriculturally and with regard to the state of the general public health, is steadily getting worse. It points out that there are 46,000 acres of land in that one flooded district alone—by far the largest proportion of it quite cultivable land—more or less ruined for the

1699
purpose of agriculture every year by floods. The Report says that "nothing beyond the making of survey maps, plans, and estimates has yet been done either by the State or by combination of owners for securing even the mitigation of the evil complained of, and we have abundant testimony that flooding and the consequent injury are growing greater year by year." There is one matter upon which certainly I can congratulate the authors who drafted the Report. It is on the fact that they have inserted in it statements which echo the evidence that came before them from many witnesses, and that is that in any scheme of arterial drainage for Ireland the Irish county councils should be invited to take an active and thoroughly representative and influential part. They point that out on page 11 of the Report, and I need not trouble the House to read it. Certainly the Irish county councils may be said to have surpassed all public expectation, even by their best friends, in the way they have discharged their duties. It cannot be forgotten that whereas in this country what is called local government was a thing of slow and steady growth which it took generation after generation and century after century to build up, the Irish, without any previous practical training in the country districts in the management of public affairs, have had thrown upon them, not first of all county councils and then district councils, but county councils and district councils simultaneously. I think the first Report issued by the Local Government Board on the first year's working of the county councils in Ireland is as glowing a tribute to the ability and capacity of the Irish people for the management of public affairs as even the most enthusiastic of Nationalist could well draft with his own pen.
Then there is the great question of money. There is the important point to which this Report calls attention—namely, the great disappointment caused under the old Drainage Act by the fact that the actual expenditure heavily exceeded the estimate. That was due to the circumstance that they carried out these drainage works on the estimate of having to meet such abnormal floods as only happened once in 20 years or a quarter of a century. The Report suggests, I think very reasonably, that a much lower and perfectly safe estimate might be made for what is called the ordinary flooding which happens from year to year in many of these swamped
1700
districts. I remember having been in several deputations on this subject. I was on one to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover when he was Chief Secretary for Ireland. I was on another to the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary, and in each case the lament was that it was a matter of money and of the attitude of the Treasury. I am not sure whether there is any representative of the Treasury present to-day.
Mr. JOHN REDMOND: Not one.
Mr. HAVILAND BURKE: I think it is a slight to the House that when we are discussing a question in which the Treasury is greatly concerned the Treasury is not represented. In each of the cases I have referred to the Treasury was represented as being the difficulty. I have always thought that the relationship between the British Government and the British Treasury closely resembles the relationship that existed between the two members of the famous firm of solicitors, Spenlow and Jorkins. I remember the principle on which Spenlow and Jorkins ran their business and built up their success. If you went to their offices you could never get at the two of them at the same time. If you wanted to borrow money from the firm, Spenlow would say that he was willing to meet the request only that terrible fellow Jorkins was not there, and he would not do anything without him. On the other hand, if a writ was out against anyone, and you asked Jorkins to give time to pay, he was full of the deepest sympathy, and was willing to give you any amount of time, only Spenlow was too hard a man. Now it is just the same thing when we come to the Treasury. Treasury Spenlow will ladle out money if only Government Jorkins will allow him, and when you go to Jorkins he says the terrible Treasury Spenlow will not allow him to obey the dictates of his conscience. But there are two important questions which these British Treasury officials might be induced to consider seriously if they were brought before them in the right manner. I do not expect the British Treasury officials to have the least sympathy for the number of Irish men, women, and girls who die of consumption and fevers which are the direct result of having to live in those swamped districts. But an argument on a purely business basis might be addressed to the Treasury. In the present circumstances, under the Land Purchase Act of 1903, if a tenant fails to pay his purchase annuity it can be

1701
recovered, but if this evil goes on and increases, it is plain that whole districts will be unable to pay the annuities, and even Treasury officials cannot get money out of bankrupt districts, any more than you can get blood out of a stone. I say this is an economic question, namely, the reclamation of vast areas of good land at present practically useless, and the saving of other big areas of good land from being rendered equally useless. I say this is not a demand for relief works or charity. It is a demand for the expenditure of good insurance money by the Treasury, if looked at from no other point of view. It is on that ground that I am very strongly in favour of the Resolution so ably proposed to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for South Leitrim. I do not know whether it will go to a Division, but at least I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to consider the question not merely from the humanitarian point of view—though I know no one could reproach him with any lack of intention to consider the question of humanity—but to consider it with the view to bringing it before this terrible junta, the Treasury, which stands between him and those who have any dealings with Ireland, and to treat it as a big economic question in which the British Treasury itself may come to be interested in a very disagreeable way if it does not make some concession towards enabling the Irish Government to meet an undoubted grievance which has been reported upon again and again by distinguished bodies of men. The Reports issued by the Commissions appointed by different Governments, and consisting of men of different creeds and parties, have proved the necessity for this work being done. I think this is a question which deserves the most earnest and prompt attention on the part of this House.
Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: With the exception of a few sentences in the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution in which they said they thought Home Rule ought to be the remedy of arterial drainage, I am in agreement with practically everything that has been said by the hon. Members below the Gangway. It is with increasing indignation that we raise these now annual discussions on this subject to bring before the House what, so far as my own part of Ireland is concerned, I consider to be the most disreputable inactivity of successive Governments. I say this for the present Government that they are not in this matter one bit worse than their predecessors. One of the hon.
1702
Gentlemen sitting on the opposite bench is an expert in this matter—the President of the Department of Agriculture. He served on the Select Committee, and you may take it he knew all about it, and if we cannot get some consideration and some satisfaction out of the two hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite—I frankly admit I do not expect much—I am afraid you will have to give it up as a bad job. I propose later on to say a few words with regard to the general question of arterial drainage for the whole of Ireland, but for the moment I propose to deal with that portion of it with which I am more directly concerned, namely, the arterial drainage so far as the Bann and Lough Neagh are concerned; and I am afraid I shall have to trouble the House with a very short history of that question, and of the action of successive Governments with reference to it.
I am sorry to say it is one of bungling on the part of successive Governments and one of insincerity. We maintain they never meant anything they said. They never kept any of their promises. We go further and say that successive Governments, whether Liberal or Conservative, have shown the most absolutely callous indifference to the sufferings of the people who happen to live in these affected areas. The arterial drainage with which I am more intimately connected—that of Lough Neagh and of the Bann—is rather peculiar, and differs from that of the Barrow. It is not a question of whether the suffering is the greater in the case of the Barrow or the Bann. I think there is no doubt that the suffering in the case of the Barrow is very great, and there is no doubt it is very great in the case of the Bann. Lough Neagh, as everybody knows, who knows the map of Ireland, is a very large sheet of water, in fact, the largest in the three kingdoms, and the peculiarity of its drainage is that the drainage of one-third or perhaps even one-half of Ulster comes into Lough Neagh by means of 10 or 12 considerable rivers before it goes into the sea. The outlet from Lough Neagh into the sea for this huge amount of drainage is through one river, the Bann—what is known as the Lower Bann—which goes out of the northern end of Lough Neagh. That portion of the river Bann is only 30 miles long and falls only 40 feet through the 30 miles. Therefore the House will understand that, like most of the great arterial rivers of Ireland, it is comparatively sluggish, and the difficulty is to get the enormous body of water which accumulates in Lough Neagh after a series of floods down

1703
to the sea as quickly as it accumulates in the Lough, without allowing the level of the Lough to rise. And the shores of Lough Neagh and the Bann as happens in the case of a good many of the lakes and rivers of Ireland, are very low, so low that even an inch of a rise above the summer level means that a certain area of land is flooded according to the extent of the rise. That is the problem with which we have to deal in the Lough Neagh basin in this matter.
On this question of arterial drainage hon. Members below the Gangway say they have been agitating the case of the Barrow for 50 years. We have been agitating the case of the Bann for a hundred and fifty years, but I am sorry to say that we have had as little success as they have had. The House will realise the size of this question when I tell them that seven counties, that is the counties of Antrim, Down, Londonderry, Armagh, Tyrone and Monaghan, and even, I believe, as far west as Fermanagh, supply some of the water which flows into Lough Neagh, and many of them send practically the whole of their rainfall into the Lough. Therefore, I am correct in saying that probably half or more than half of Ulster sends its rainfall into the Bann and has to be dealt with by this one river with its small fall of 40 feet. The problem to be dealt with is how to get rid of the enormous volume of water that comes down all these rivers to Lough Neagh after rainfall. Hon. Members from parts of the United Kingdom other than Ireland must know that the rainfall is pretty heavy in Ireland. I do not know whether it is heavier in the north or the south, but taken as a whole the rainfall in Ireland is very much greater than what you have to deal with in either England or Scotland except in one or two particular places. This agitation is a very natural agitation to have this horrible state of affairs remedied. I will take an opportunity of saying a word or two later on as to what the condition of affairs is, though I might shortly say it is practically the same as has been so ably described by the hon. Member below the Gangway with regard to the Barrow. This agitation culminated after very many years in an inquiry being ordered by the Government.
In the year 1843 a certain Mr. McMahon was delegated by the Government of that day to inspect the river and report upon it, and finally to draw up a scheme showing how much it would cost to carry out
1704
the necessary drainage work. He made his Report, which was issued in 1845. The chief point in his Report was that to relieve this flooding and to drain this area would cost £109,000, and that the Work would take three years. The people suffering from these floods and a great many people who were not suffering from them were quite willing—so great was the suffering of their neighbours—to pay a share in relieving this unfortunate state of affairs, and they consented to bear the tax to pay off this large sum of £109,000. An Act of Parliament was duly passed by which this was to be done in 44 half-yearly payments. If the works that were authorised by this Act of Parliament had been properly carried out we would have no Bann question to-day. If it had been properly done, and if the plans in the first place had been completed, we would have nothing now to complain of. Not only that, but if the plans had been properly carried out the probabilities are—in fact, it is almost certain—that to-day there would be no question of this flooding in these districts. The works, such as they were, were commenced in the year 1846; but in consequence of the peculiar ways of the Board of Works—the ways we all know from time immemorial being very peculiar—the work, instead of taking three years, as the unfortunate people were led to understand would be the case, took 12 years, and instead of costing £109,000, as was estimated, the work cost £150,000.
The Treasury will probably answer that they gave a free grant of £40,000. I understand that they did so, but if they did I ask the House to remember that the work cost £150,000 instead of £109,000, and, as a matter of fact, the unfortunate people who were being ruined by this flooding in the 22 years through which they paid these half-yearly instalments paid the sum of £166,000, the original sum and interest; and to this day one of the most difficult arithmetical problems known in the North of Ireland is to know how the Board of Works, or the Treasury, or whoever it was, made up that sum of £166,000. Nobody has ever yet been able to solve that problem, and I have among these voluminous papers dealing with this question an entire volume devoted to the sole purpose of trying to elucidate that mystery. I have read it through—here is the document—and I assure the House after reading it through one is no nearer a solution of the problem. Therefore, if the Treasury make any point of this grant of £40,000, it should

1705
be remembered that we paid more than that extra £40,000 in the interest arrived at in a way in which nobody yet has been able to tell.
One explanation of why it took twelve years instead of three to do the work, and why it cost £150,000 instead of £109,000, is that in the first place the Board of Works practically went on lines peculiar to themselves. Instead of pursuing the ordinary course of asking for tenders for the execution of this work, they thought fit to take the whole of this enormous operation, for which they had no experience, into their own hands, and they started to do this business with their own men, paying them from week to week, with their own timekeeper, overseers, managers, and all that sort of thing. It stands to reason that a Board of that sort was not able to carry out an operation of this kind either so cheaply or in such a short space of time as a contractor whose business it is, and who is used to doing that kind of work. That party accounts for the extra cost and the extra time. But, in the next place, quite early in the twelve years the unfortunate famine came upon Ireland, and these works were used as a means of giving employment to a large number of people. Of course, no one proposes to find fault with that in the slightest degree. It was quite natural that all public works should be utilised at that time for giving employment. But they had no legitimate right to compel the unfortunate people who were being flooded by these surplus waters to stand the cost of that philanthropic work, which helped to relieve starvation at that time. Those two courses—using them to a large extent as relief works and not giving the work out to contractors—increased both the time and the amount of money that had to be spent on the works. These two things were bad in themselves, but subsequent investigations have shown that the plans, which the people had been led to understand were carried out, were during the course of the work actually changed and curtailed, and that where it was pretended to carry the plans out they had not been finished properly. I know from my own knowledge that in many places on the river Barrow at the present time there are still what may be termed "banks"—I do not know the technical term—in the middle of the river, used to divert a portion of the stream, for the purpose of blasting rocks or something of that sort, which gravely impede the flow of water through some of the most impor-
1706
tant parts of the river. In other places there are several feet of rock, which, according to the plans, were to have been quarried or blasted away, but have never been touched. In fact, to make a long story short, I am led to understand that in many respects the actual plans were not carried out. I admit that since then a certain amount of silting may have taken place, which may be responsible to a certain extent for the fact that the drainage is not what it ought to be at the present time; but, at any rate, I have shown that the people who were to be benefited by these works have not had their money's worth, that they have been made to pay 30 per cent. more than they originally contracted for, and have not got what the Government promised. In this matter the Government was solely responsible, because all this was done by the Board of Works. It was their engineer who was employed, and it was on the faith of their undertaking that the people agreed to pay this enormous sum. It is a very doleful story altogether, but I have to add one still more doleful touch. For the first ten years things went fairly well; the works seemed to alleviate the distress and to meet the requirements of the case to a certain extent. But after that things were as bad as ever, and now I am not far out when I say that the flooding, inconvenience, and sickness are as bad as before the works were carried out. The agitation naturally resulting led, in the eighties, to further investigations, and the very first thing the engineer then discovered was that the data on which Mr. MacMahon, the original engineer, had calculated the whole scheme was entirely wrong. He had calculated that a discharging capacity out of Lough Neagh at the upper end of the Lower Bann of some 400,000 cubic feet per minute would be necessary, whereas subsequent investigations showed that a discharging capacity of between 700,000 and 800,000 cubic feet per minute was required. The original engineer had miscalculated to the extent of nearly 50 per cent.
I think we have every legitimate right to complain of the action of the Government so far as I have gone in the story, and on the facts which I have put before the House we have a perfect right to ask that the Government should come forward and put right that which they then did wrongly. They contracted—it was practically a matter of contract—with the people who were suffering from the floodings that they would put things right, and

1707
the people on their part contracted that they would find the sum I have mentioned to repay what was practically a loan from the Government to carry out these works. They have not only repaid the money, but they have been paying ever since, and are paying at the present time heavy drainage charges for the purpose of keeping the drainage works in good order. I think I have shown very conclusively that the drainage works, whatever else they are, are not in good order; they are not doing what was intended; and therefore my contention on these annual occasions has been that on these facts alone we are entitled to redress at the hands of the Government. They owe us that money as truly as if I were to say to a Member of this House, "If you give me £10 I will perform certain services." and then, having been given the £10, I did not perform the service, the hon. Member would be entitled to get his £10 back.
Now I come to the later history of the matter, and it is a very discreditable one so far as the various Governments are concerned. It is a record of insincerity, of putting us off from year to year by granting inquiries by Board of Works engineers, whose natural disinclination to touch this matter has invariably led to the production of Reports inimical to our point of view, whereas when investigations have been made by outside engineers the Reports have always been favourable to our point of view. The first of these Reports was made after considerable agitation, which the right hon. Gentleman opposite will remember very well, for the question formed a large part of the subject-matter of his as well as of my speeches during my election campaign in 1903, a part of the area most affected being in my Constituency. Here I cannot hold the present Government to blame, because the late Government were in office. An inquiry was promised, and Mr. Dick, the Board of Works engineer, was sent down to make a report, but he being the Board of Works' engineer, his report was not particularly favourable. But I had better go back to the Report of the Allport Commission to show that the Government themselves were in full possession of all the facts. That Report, published in 1887, stated:—
"There can be no doubt that the amount of flooding at present experienced on the Lower Bann causes serious inconvenience and loss of money to occupiers of land adjoining the river and lough."
1708
And they conclude by saying:—
"Viewing the facts we arrive at the conclusion that the design of river improvements undertaken by the Board of Works in 1847 was to a certain extent imperfect."
I can understand that the writer of that Report did not care to be too severe on the Board of Works. He says "to a certain extent"; the probabilities are that an unbiassed person like myself would have said that they were absolutely imperfect, and had failed entirely to do what was expected of them. At any rate, I am quite content to rely upon these words:—
"The design of river improvements undertaken by the Board of Works in 1847 was to a certain extent imperfect, and it is clear to us that the work to which we have alluded ought to be undertaken."
That is to say, practically the works recommended in the various reports, which have all been on the same lines; they have been said to be complementary to the original works proposed by Mr. MacMahon. In 1899 a Bill for carrying out the recommendations of the Report to which I have just referred was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and referred to a Select Committee. The preamble of the Bill was duly passed, but for some reason or other the measure never became law. The proposals of that Bill were to spend £65,000, which was all the Committee were informed the necessary works would require to make them fully operative, and that sum was proposed to be allocated in the following manner, namely, £8,000 charged on the land affected by flooding, £37,000 county cess on baronies and town lands in the area, and £20,000 free gift. I do not think the proposal to give £20,000 as a free gift was at all generous, and, under the circumstances, I am rather glad that the Bill never became law, because I hope that the fact may even yet be impressed upon the Government that they are under a real obligation to pay the full amount necessary to put these works in proper working order. After the failure of that Bill, the sufferers continued their agitation. Between 1900 and 1903 the agitation was pursued more actively than ever, and in 1904 the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland sent down Mr. Dick, who reported that it would cost £150,000 to carry out the improvements. That report gave the greatest possible dissatisfaction to everybody concerned, and a well-known local engineer, a Mr. Barton, and others familiar with the whole question, were promptly able to show that Mr. Dick's report was entirely unreliable. It was a most per-

1709
functory document, and appears to have been drawn up by Mr. Dick in his spare moments, and apparently without having gone down to the scene of operations at all, but simply by taking figures from the various reports which preceded it. He began his report by saying that on 13th October he received his instructions, and that "after considerable interruption by other pressing matters," he begged to submit his report, which covered two pages, and made out the cost as £150,000. The greatest dissatisfaction was caused by the report, and, as I have said, it was shortly shown that the report was entirely unreliable. That I need hardly tell the House was not calculated to allay the agitation or discontent of the people suffering from the floodings. Things went on for a short time, and then Sir Alexander Binnie, in 1905, was asked to make a report. He, acting on contrary lines to those of Mr. Dick, went down to the principal point concerned on Lough Neagh, took a house, tackled the question in a thoroughly businesslike manner, and made a very full report, in which he estimated that the cost would be £75,000, which I may say is approximately the figure which all those interested in the matter have always said would put things right. That is practically how the matter stands at present. The Government or the Board of Works, immediately after a favourable report, send down yet another man, and after this favourable report was made by an outside authority, who had no interest in the matter whatever, the Government or the Board of Works sent down a man for the purpose of discrediting the report of Sir Alexander Binnie. The whole object of sending him down seems to be disclosed by the figures at the end of his report, where he says that the necessary annual increase of the value of the land to be benefited would be only £750. That is always the course taken by the Government all through this affair, just as a favourable report is made they send somebody down to discredit that report, and if they could not discredit it they let it go. They waited until the agitation became so strong, then another engineer had to go down and make another report. Then they disposed of that, or tried to discredit it, by sending a Board of Works' engineer to make one of their patent reports, trying always to neutralise the effect of the other. That is the state we are in to-day, and after all those years the flooding in that area is as bad to-day as it was 50 years ago. We have spent all this money with
1710
nothing for it, and not only that, but the people are paying heavy charges, those unfortunate people living by the river and the Lough. Those drainage charges are over and above what they have already paid for the works. The drainage works are no use. That is the state of affairs on the Bann, and, as has been shown, the state of affairs on the Barrow, and in both cases it is a disgrace. I think this Government and other Governments would have been far better employed in dealing with this great question than in dealing with the hundred and one other questions in which I am sorry to say they have wasted money in Ireland. They wasted money on those things which, if they had spent it on arterial drainage, would have repaid 10 or 20 fold to the British Treasury.
With reference to the general question, I do not think anybody realises in England, and I certainly did not realise until I read the Report of the Arterial Drainage Commission, what a big question this is and how important it is. The ordinary Englishman, and probably very few Irishmen, realise the fact that Ireland is almost like Holland; that is the nearest approximation I can get in the fact that the greater part of the land of the country lies but a very few feet above the level of the nearest river or sea, so that at the slightest rise in the level of the lakes or rivers causes an infinitely greater amount of flooding and damage than in a country like England, which lies so much higher than Ireland. If you bear that fact in mind you will realise how important the question of arterial drainage is for the country. I guarantee if the lands lying along the great rivers of Ireland and round the lakes were compared with similar land in England it would be found the difference in the respective heights of the two sets of land is very great indeed. Therefore, we say that although arterial drainage is necessary in particular cases in England it is not a national requirement. In Ireland it is one of the most important national requirements which up to the present time have been left untouched.
As I said at the beginning, I do not think we can hope for much, although I have no doubt we will get any amount of sympathy. That is what we have always got, but sympathy is not of very much use for those unfortunate people who have to suffer such an amount of discomfort in health and happiness from year to year. I would really like to urge on the right hon. Gentleman if he cannot get up and give us some real satisfaction, and tell us

1711
that the Government intend to do something. I would very much rather that instead of giving us sympathy he would tell us, "I am very sorry we have no money available, but possibly in ten or twenty years we may have." We are sick to death of being told we have the heartiest sympathy not only of the Government but of everybody who knows anything about the question. That is no use to us whatever. I fully realise the claims of the Barrow, but each of us in a matter of this kind has to fight his own corner, and I say, seeing that we have paid so much money, that we have a special claim on the consideration of the Government. The people undoubtedly did pay a vast sum of money, and I do not see how by any argument the Government can get out of that claim. Whether we are to get it or not is quite another matter. The hon. Member who seconds the Resolution gave us a number of extracts from letters for the benefit of English Members who did not realise the deplorable condition in which those districts are. Those extracts may equally apply to the districts which I represent. I have seen tracts of land of 2,000 acres under water, and occasionally where a house happened to be on a slight eminence it escaped, but in the majority of cases the houses were submerged two or three or four feet of water. The thousand or two thousand acres cases was in a pretty thickly populated part of the country. I do not propose to read more than one extract of a report of a local dispensary doctor. It is taken from a pamphlet drawn up by a gentleman named Mr. Shillington in the year 1902.
Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: Mr. Shillington, of Portadown.
Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Here is what the dispensary doctor says. The hon. Member quoted a statement of the doctor pointing out that in an experience of 24 years he had attended many serious cases of sickness and registered deaths of many persons suffering from pulmonary diseases, and that he attributed the cause of many of those deaths to the floods. The amount of sickness varied in direct proportion to the extent and duration of floods during the winter. He further says he has frequently seen whole families driven from their houses to higher ground and returning when the waters subside. Their health must be affected by the damp, especially with earthen floors. That is simply one letter, and on the same lines as those read
1712
out by the hon. Member below the Gangway. I can thoroughly endorse them myself. It is true the flood I have witnessed, that of the 2,000 acres, does not occur more than once in five or six years, but every year there are floods of lesser dimensions which do a vast amount of harm to property and health. It is quite an ordinary occurrence, and I daresay it could be seen this very day. There are instances of last year's hay rotting in the fields, and it is more than a two to one chance of floods getting at the crops. I am quite sure when the speeches of the hon. Members below the Gangway have been completed that the case will be proved, or, in fact, that it is already proved, as it has been proved time and time again since I have been a Member of this House of Commons every year. If having a good case goes for anything, then I say the Government cannot resist any longer the claims of those people affected by bad drainage or by want of arterial drainage in Ireland.
Money spent in this way would be infinitely better spent than money spent in a great many ways in Ireland. I need not go into the details, as in a case like this where I find myself in such agreement with hon. Members below the Gangway I do not wish to throw any apple of discord into our discussions by pointing out the directions in which money might have been better spent in this way than in other respects. There is plenty of money in the British Treasury, and there is no case in which money could be better spent than in making a start at any rate on this work. I do not ask the Government to give any very great sum of money, but I do ask them to make a beginning with some of the very sensible recommendations of the arterial drainage report. Let them do that, and let them at the same time think of the position of those people along the Bann and of the money robbed from my unfortunate constituents and people who reside along the Bann. Although I think we have an absolutely just case I have great fears we shall not see very much of that money out of this Government. I leave aside the question of the Bann for the moment, although naturally it was a question in which I am most interested, and I do say that this question of arterial drainage is of such importance as that it ought to be grappled with by the Government at the very first opportunity. If this Government, guilty of many misdeeds in Ireland, will only take this matter into consideration I can assure them they will

1713
leave behind them one monument of usefulness which will be gratefully remembered by anyone who suffered in any way by want of proper arterial drainage in Ireland.
Mr. ANNAN BRYCE: As a Member of the Congested Districts Commission I may be allowed to say a word as to the proposal put forward by hon. Members above and below the Gangway on the opposite side. There was before the Commission plenty of evidence as to the need of general arterial drainage in Ireland, and in parts of the West of Ireland there were cases where it was seen that the expenditure would be highly reproductive, as the hon. Member said, as an economical question. In several cases it was shown where the work had actually been done by the Congested Districts Board, as, for example, on the Dillon estate, what an immense benefit could be had from the expenditure of money in such a way when wisely directed. A large amount of land which has previously been unproductive would be avail able for reclamation, and I have little doubt if we had, in conjunction with a system of afforestation, a comprehensive scheme of arterial drainage, the result would be that the whole state of Ireland would be rapidly improved—the climate would be improved, the productiveness of the soil would be improved, and the Treasury, as has been well said by a Gentleman below the Gangway, would itself be benefited by the creation of additional security in the form of purchase annuities which are due to it. I therefore trust that the promises which have been made by successive Chief Secretaries, with full sympathy on their part for the needs of Ireland, but which have been frustrated solely by the refusal of the Treasury to grant the necessary funds, may at last be brought to fruition, and that a vigorous effort will be made by the present Chief Secretary to carry into effect that which so many of his predecessors have failed to accomplish.
Sir WALTER NUGENT: I wish to say a few words with regard to the lands which have already been drained, or which are proposed to be drained. In the Constituency which I represent, where some of these large schemes of drainage have been put in force, the result has been that the people have found, instead of deriving benefit from what has been done, they hare merely been subjected to very greatly increased charges without actually
1714
receiving any corresponding benefit therefrom. We have heard something about local drainage boards. There seems to be some misapprehension as to their powers. They have no power, and they can do absolutely nothing. They have sometimes a lot of uncompleted and crude work thrown upon them by the Board of Works, but there is no provision for them, and they are expected to arrange, at the cost of the already heavily burdened people, who have to pay a fixed rate to the Board of Works for local drainage, to raise from the rates sufficient, or barely sufficient, to keep open the main river. The situation is this: the main river is kept open, but all the surrounding land and tributary drains and streams, as a rule, are not dealt with at all. There is no power to compel the occupier to keep the watercourse open. The drainage board has no power, and, consequently, where a small farmer, or perhaps an evicted tenant, neglects to maintain the drains crossing his farm, there is absolutely no way, so far as I can see, of remedying the evil.
To show the feeling which exists in various localities, I may mention that there are a number of cases pending by way of appeal to the King's Bench to recover the rates paid for the maintenance of drainage, on the ground that the work was never completed by the Board of Works, and that absolutely no benefit is derived locally from it. Let me give a few instances with which I am personally familiar. In one case I know of a plot of land for which a heavy rate is being paid, but a large portion of which, for seven or eight months of the year, is under water, so that the farmer has absolutely to keep a boat to go from one portion of the farm to another. That is no exaggeration of the facts. In another case the public road is for several months under water to the depth of 3ft. or 4ft., and there is absolutely no way of removing the water. The result is that the people are beginning to look with suspicion and distrust on any new scheme of drainage, because they feel that a burden will be placed upon them, while in all probability they will derive no benefit from it, but will continue to be subject to very great suffering. As regards the Shannon, I quite accept the right hon. Gentleman's reply that my information was wrong, and that the gates had been open, but I am sure he may be satisfied that my statement was correct that the condition of things is really worse than it was before the gates were put in, and yet

1715
the people have to pay for them. For my part, I do not believe that there is the slightest use of introducing any new system of arterial drainage unless the administration is placed wholly in the hands of the local authorities, the county councils. I believe it is absolutely necessary to give them power to themselves drain in the event of the occupier refusing to do it, and to drain at his cost. I believe it is absolutely necessary to drain the waterways of the country under the local authority. There is another matter which I hope will reeeive the attention of the Government. There is an enormous amount of waste land, not only in Ireland but also in England and Scotland, which can be touched by no drainage scheme. There is an enormous number of able-bodied paupers who are maintained by charity, and there are thousands of unemployed who are doing useless work at the expense of this State. It has always seemed to me that one problem would solve the other, and I sincerely hope that when the reform of the poor law is under consideration that some such scheme will be borne an mind. I hope also that the powers of the local authorities will be increased—for my part I should like to see the Board of Works done away with altogether—and I hope that local authorities will be empowered to compel able-bodied paupers to do such work as will prove beneficial to the community. That would not be to ask money from the Treasury, it is a question of adding thousands and thousands of acres of land and adding millions of pounds to the additional wealth of the country. We believe that if we had the opportunity in Ireland we could do that for ourselves, and we also believe that it would be a popular scheme. As we have not got the chance to do it, we ask you to do it, and to do it not only for Ireland, but for England. We believe that if you carry out our suggestions you will have an ample return for every penny you spend.
Mr. HUGH BARRIE: I am glad of the opportunity of saying a few words, because my Constituency does not happen to be affected by this question. It has sometimes been concluded from that fact that my Constituents are rather out of sympathy with the scheme which has been brought forward for the relief of the present distress. Nothing could be further from the truth than that our attitude is in any degree hostile to the different schemes
1716
that have been brought forward from time to time. It is true, and I think it is only reasonable, that where we are concerned with the safety of the extensive navigation works carried out at the entrance of the River Bann some years ago, at the cost of the ratepayers, and not by Government grant, and for which many of my Constituents are still paying, those works should in no way be weakened or their utility injured by the proposals in regard to drainage. With that reservation I gladly concur in the speeches made this afternoon as to the great importance of this question to Ireland. We feel that these districts which are liable to be flooded have a strong claim upon the Government, and that successive Governments have altogether failed to appreciate the gravity of the position in the districts affected. Reference was made by my colleague to the report of Sir Alexander Binnie, a report which I hope the Chief Secretary has carefully studied. It gives evidence of a full recognition of the different problems involved, and all the recommendations in regard to the present state of affairs seemed to give a reasonable prospect of solution. I know that most of those who are affected by these problems on the Bann did hope that when that report came before the House the Government would promptly proceed to act upon it. The total cost of carrying out the works on the Bann, as recommended by Sir Alexander Binnie, was £76,000. But instead of proceeding to act upon that report, we know what has happened. Within a few months of the reports being laid upon the Table another engineer, Mr. Bell, was appointed to go down. In other words, we had the report of an eminent authority, like Sir Alexander Binnie, recommending an expenditure of £76,000, and a year later the other engineer, Mr. Bell, comparatively unknown, presented a report to Parliament suggesting that the whole annual benefit from the expenditure of £76,000 was £750 per annum. I can only say, as one acquainted with occupiers on the banks of the Bann, that I have not met one who for a moment suggests that Mr. Bell's report is really worth the paper it is printed upon. I am not now referring to him, I hope, in any objectionable way. but the feeling is absolutely unanimous that Mr. Bell has failed to grasp the position, and has jumped at conclusions that an engineer of greater authority would have been very slow to have attached his name to. I am not going to suggest any unworthy motives to the Government, but we do recognise

1717
that the nett effect of the presentation of the second report has been to put an extinguisher, if I may use the term, upon the report of Sir Alexander Binnie. All the same, as one winter succeeds another, floods are taking place, and there seems to be no present sign of the Government doing anything substantial to alleviate the misery which exists in the country. We have sometimes had reference made as to obstacles to the improvement of the drainage of the Bann by the present navigation works. I am not one of those who suggest that it would be either wise or prudent that these expensive navigation works should be destroyed in order to improve and alleviate the present situation. On the contrary, although it is admittedly true that the traffic on the river is not what we should like it to be, many of those intimately associated with the river recognise that these navigation works are an insurance against any attempt to raise the rates on the part of the authorities covering the district. I for one would be sorry indeed to see the adoption of any proposal to destroy the navigation works, and thus do away with that safeguard which we think at present they give us. I do feel that in this matter the Government has not treated any part of Ireland fairly. Reference has already been made by almost every speaker this afternoon to the number of times that this question has been before Parliament. I think it is a great tribute to the patience of those who have so long suffered that they have been so modest in the demands that they have made to this House. If the last Government had been willing to give the different county councils concerned with the River Bann—I think five county councils—£50,000, I think I am correct in saying that those county councils would not have absolutely refused to give a contribution themselves, and have this grievance finally removed. We find no such action on the part of the Government. The only action which they have taken is to send Mr. Bell down to prove that the total improvements likely to result from carrying out these works would be an annual benefit to the whole district concerned, covering five counties, of £750 per annum. I can only say that the farmers interested are greatly disappointed. While we welcome the opportunity of again bringing this problem before the House, I must admit that I am not as hopeful as I should like to be. The proposer of the Motion reminded the Chief Secretary and the whole House that the whole of the Irish Members are of one
1718
mind in this matter. He proceeded to say, I think fairly, that when all the Irish Members are united on behalf of any worthy object that their position should be considered infinitely stronger than upon any subject upon which they are divided. I think that attitude was strengthened by the remarks of the Prime Minister yesterday in introducing the Welsh Disestablishment Bill. He said:—
"If the Irish Members of all colours and complexion sitting upon those benches opposite—suppose the whole of the Irish Members—hon. Gentlemen whom I see above the Gangway on the other side, together with those sitting below the Gangway, were to come to this House united as one body, in their demand in regard to a matter of purely Irish concern, can anyone conceive this House or any Parliament in this country refusing their demand."
We are absolutely united in this matter. We say that with regard to this matter of arterial drainage that we have been trifled with by successive Governments. While we do not carry our requests to the extent of the £10,000,000 which has been mentioned this afternoon, we do say that the case is so urgent, both on sanitary grounds and on various other grounds, that we shall be grievously disappointed if the Government do not intimate, on behalf of the Treasury, that it is their intention to give a substantial grant during the next year.
May I conclude by referring to a minor aspect of this matter. Although it is a minor aspect, it shows that the Government is not alive to the position. I have the honour to speak in the presence of the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture, who knows this problem almost as well as I do myself. He knows that about seven or eight miles above Coleraine we find this trouble in its most acute form; so serious, indeed, that the farmers there have banded themselves into an organisation with the hope of remedying it. They have been in correspondence with the Chief Secretary. I must crave the indulgence of the House while I read a letter recently addressed to the Chief Secretary by their secretary. In that letter a suggestion is offered, which I venture to submit, as a temporary alleviation of the trouble, is worthy of immediate consideration. The letter is as follows:—
"Landagivey, Aghadowey, Co. Derry,
"February, 1909.
"Re Bann Drainage.
"To the Right Hon. Augustine Birrell, Chief Secretary for Ireland.
"Hon Sir,—Acting on the intimation conveyed to us in your letter of August 1st, 1908, re Bann Drainage, we applied to the Drainage Trustees of the Lower Bann to open the sluices in the lock gate at the Cutts, Coleraine, and to place a sluice on the mill race now barricaded up. They directed us to apply to the Navigation

1719
Board, as it is that body who have entire control of the sluices. We sent a deputation to wait upon the Navigation Board at their last meeting, which was held on February 5th.
I may say, in passing, that I regret I was absent from that meeting myself, or I should have supported the application.
"They are in entire sympathy with us, and are quite willing to open the sluices if the Board of Works direct them to do so, and told us that they would open them immediately on getting the order from the Board of Works. The resolution of the Navigation Board is enclosed herewith. In regard to the sluicing of the mill race, the Navigation Board are of opinion that it constitutes a new work, although we hold it is part of the original plan which was never completed. It could be done at a trifling cost from the maintenance rate, and this is the opinion of Major Torrens (a member of the Board), who informed us that in his evidence before the Commission on Arterial Drainage he strongly recommended the sluicing of the mill race which is now barricaded up, and he is still convinced that it would go a long way towards preventing the constantly recurring flooding of the lower reaches of the Bann". In conclusion, Sir, seeing how we have been sent from Pilate to Herod, we respectively ask you to command the Board of Works to give instructions for the opening of the sluices, and the sluicing of the mill race referred to above, as these works can be done at a small cost, and it would bring relief to a large number of farmers who have borne a grievous burden for upwards of half a century.
"Signed (on behalf of the Agivey Bann
Drainage Association),
"JAS. MCKEEMAR, Secretary."
To that letter no reply has been so far addressed to the secretary. The resolution of the Navigation Board is:—
"That this Board cannot accede to the request of the Agivey Bann Drainage Association as to opening the sluices in the lock gates at the Cutts, Coleraine, without having the sanction of the Board of Works, and being relieved from the responsibility in respect of any which may result therefrom to the navigation works."
May I add that these are the minor suggestions. I believe that they would not in the slightest degree injure the navigation works, and that if the right hon. Gentleman can arrange with the Board of Works to give these suggestions an experimental trial, very great good would result to the districts concerned. I only want to make our attitude clear. The Navigation Trustees and the Coloraine Harbour Board would gladly welcome any reasonable step that would remove that undoubted grievance from which many farmers are suffering in the immediate district.
Mr. JOHN O'DOWD: I rise to support the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for South Leitrim. Every fair-minded hon. Member of this Assembly, who has listened to the speeches delivered in this Debate, should have no hesitation whatever in drawing the inevitable and right conclusion that the question of arterial drainage in Ireland is one
1720
of the gravest importance. It is a question of national importance. The conclusion that hon. Members will arrive at is this, that so far as this matter of arterial drainage is concerned, the Government of this country in regard to it have been negligent in the past. The question has been raised and debated in this House over and over again a number of years by hon. Members representing all parties in Ireland. It has been brought up here year after year, and it has been shown that there is no difference of opinion whatever between us. On this question we can unite, and we are united. Still, I am sorry to say that up to the present, at any rate, this great question remains unsettled and unsolved. It has been generally admitted that the settlement of the question would affect beneficially many thousands of people in all parts of the country, and this is one reason why the people of Ireland regard this question as of such importance, and that year after year through their electoral representatives in this House they insist on its being enforced on the attention of Parliament. The question affects Unionists and Nationalists alike. It is a question the solution of which would mean bringing health and prosperity to many communities suffering from the flooding of these rivers. It is a question which would add thousands and thousands of acres of land which would, and could, be profitably and beneficially used by the people living in the vicinity of these rivers. Is it any wonder that this question should be regarded as one of great importance by the people? This question is a vital one, and in the opinion of most people second only to that of the land. It is sincerely to be hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will now hearken to the voice of a United Ireland, and that he will aid in formulating some scheme by which this real grievance can be redressed. It is a grievance which all classes in Ireland and in all parts of Ireland suffer from alike, and suffer very severely indeed. The general question of the drainage of the Irish rivers in all its aspects has been so ably and exhaustively dealt with by other speakers that I do not intend to say much upon that question. I may be permitted, however, to express the hope that the Government may initiate some scheme of drainage which will be the means of averting the periodic famine in a great many districts all over the country which results from flooding. The drainage of the Bann and other great

1721
rivers of Ireland has been mentioned. We have heard a lot of the Bann and of the Barrow, and of the other great navigable waterways of the country. With everything that has been said with regard to these great waterways I am in entire agreement, but I think my hon. Friends will sympathise with the view I take when I put before the House another aspect, which has not been touched upon very much up to the present. That is the question of the numerous unnavigable rivers of the country, with their tributaries in the West of Ireland and elsewhere. These rivers are periodically flooded, and, year after year, from my own personal knowledge, these floods cause frightful damage in my own county, the county of Sligo. May I put one case forward, that is the case of the Owenmore River in Sligo. This river takes its rise in a congested district, and it flows through three separate congested districts in the county of Sligo. It is a river of considerable size and importance, one of the most important, I believe, in the West of Ireland, and it is called by the people the Big River. It takes a zigzag course all through the county of Sligo from south to north, and, owing to its crooked course and choked condition, it has been liable for the last 100 years to periodic floods, which have done frightful damage year after year. It usually rises in July and August, when the crops are almost ready for gathering, with the result that the amount of damage done can be better imagined than described. I have personal knowledge of the damage done, and am fully acquainted with it, and it really baffles description. The extent of the damage cannot be calculated, and that is one of the reasons why I would impress the claims of the people of Sligo in regard to the matter of having this river drained, and speedily drained, more than any other. Let me explain to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House the efforts that have been made locally to have this river drained. The first effort made to have the Owenmore River drained was, so far as I can ascertain, in 1847, the year of the Black Famine in Ireland, when half the population of the country were swept away. The estimate for its drainage at that time was made by the county surveyor of Sligo, and he estimated that 8,000 acres of land could be reclaimed for an outlay of £7,000, and the county surveyor of Sligo was considered a very capable man. Of course, I have no doubt whatsoever the cost of labour at that time was on a lower
1722
scale than that which labour could be obtained at the present time, owing to the fact that it was the year of the great famine. But there is one thing which cannot be denied, and the engineers who had subsequently visited the place had pointed out the fact that by the straightening of this river at certain points, by lowering the various obstructions in its course, a comparatively small amount of money spent upon this river—and it is the only river in the county of Sligo at the present time that deserves consideration, and sympathetic consideration, from the fact that its claims have always been neglected in the past—would remove all the difficulty. In 1870 another effort was made in the same direction with the consent of the landlords. Again in 1876 a great representative meeting of all classes was held, and a deputation was appointed representing all creeds and classes with the Conservative Lord Lieutenant of the county at its head, the late Colonel Cooper. The matter was put before the Conservative Government of the day with the usual results. Promises were made, but then the question was shelved I should mention that in 1895, when the Liberal Government was in office, and when the present Lord Morley was Chief Secretary for Ireland, another representation was made to the Government of that day to have something done. The Government of that day gave a promise that the matter would be looked into, but before that promise could be fulfilled they left office, and were succeeded by a Conservative Government, and their beneficent intentions were not carried out by their successors. Before I depart from the merits of this scheme may I say my hon. Friend and Leader, the Member for Waterford, in every debate on drainage that has taken place in this House for the last nine years, so impressed has he been with the claims of the Owenmore that he has been always good enough to mention, and on behalf of the people of Sligo I take this opportunity of thanking him for having done so. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, when Chief Secretary for Ireland, in response to the representations made to him, caused an inspection to be made of the river, and he subsequently stated, in reply to a question of mine, that the drainage of the river was under the consideration of the Department of Agriculture. There is one thing that cannot be denied, and I would like to put it strongly before the right hon. Gentleman the Chief

1723
Secretary. The people of Sligo have never got a grant for drainage of the Owenmore or the drainage of any other river, and therefore I think the modest claim I now put forward ought to receive favourable consideration. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, if he knew the state of affairs as I know them, he would realise the nature and extent of the damage done. Year after year the finest stacks of hay are swept away after they have been gathered, and at a time when the people most require them to meet their demands in various ways, to pay their purchase annuities, to pay their county rates, to satisfy other legitimate demands, and it is a great hardship that these goods are swept away never to be seen again. What is my demand and what is the demand of the people of the county of Sligo? It is for a small grant in aid. That is all we require, and no matter how small it is it will be thankfully received. The people affected by the overflowing of this river are prepared to do their share so far as taxation goes, and I hope the Chief Secretary will consider their case. I hope that our claim will be considered apart from any great scheme that may be put forward. I think a clause might be inserted with advantage in the new Land Bill, giving powers, so far as the nine counties in the West of Ireland are concerned, to deal with this question of arterial drainage through the Congested Districts Board. I hope that in any system that may be adopted by the Government that those people in the west will receive favourable consideration, and I trust that when the Chief Secretary casts his eye across the Shannon it will rest upon the claims of the Owenmore.
Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR (Kildare, N.): I think this a very important Home Rule Debate. I would ask hon. Members to contrast the empty benches opposite, which are usually occupied by those who represent that portion of the kingdom called Great Britain with the picture presented by this side of the House, which is a picture of unanimity between all parties, creeds, and classes who represent Ireland, who have found agreement upon a subject which affects the material interests of Ireland. It is also a Home Rule Debate, because it demonstrates, by the speeches that have been made and by the quotations which have been read from the Reports of Royal Commissions, the utter
1724
incapacity and unwillingness of Great Britain to legislate satisfactorily for Ireland. I should like to know, and perhaps the Chief Secretary will indicate to me by a shake of his head, whether on this occasion he is going to follow the example of previous Chief Secretaries, and propose that another Royal Commission be appointed.
Mr. BIRRELL Mr. BIRRELL dissented.
Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I have heard discussions on this subject on various occasions during the past 24 years, and they have nearly always resulted in the appointment of a Royal Commission or some Committee to find out that which was already well known. In my evidence before the last Commission I took the trouble to state the number of pages of evidence already taken. Lord Monck's Report contained 144 pages, Lord Castletown's 134, Lord Allport's 290, and Mr. Plunket's 65, to which has now been added 403 pages in Sir Alexander Binnie's Report, making altogether over 1,000 pages of evidence on this question. It is refreshing to know that this vast volume of knowledge is not to be added to by any proposal made by the Chief Secretary.
What has it all resulted in? That has been pointed out by Sir Alexander Binnie in his very able Report. This has been alluded to by my hon. Friend who seconded this Motion in a very able speech. It has resulted only in the production of certain plans, specifications, and estimates of the cost of the drainage of these various areas, but absolutely nothing has been done to carry out the recommendations of those Reports. I wish to enforce an observation made by the hon. Baronet who represents one of the constituencies in Westmeath when at the conclusion of his speech he made a very valuable suggestion, although it was one which is not absolutely new. It was a suggestion made by the Royal Commission which sat in the year 1834 and reported in 1836. That Commission was presided over by the late Archbishop Whateley, who was sent from this country to preside over the educational requirements of Ireland. He presided over that Commission for three years, and they made a Report and put forward certain recommendations. They said that with regard to the poor law in England it originated in the ignorance, the improvidence, and vice of those who are in need, but it pointed out an entirely different situation in

1725
Ireland where the people were able-bodied and healthy, and willing and anxious to work for any wages—even for twopence per day, but they were unable to obtain such employment. I hope I shall be pardoned for alluding to a Report which may not appear to be relevant to drainage, but the recommendations of the Commission to which I allude were, in the first place, the reclamation of waste lands, and secondly the enforcement of the drainage and fencing of land. If the recommendation of that Royal Commission which sat in Ireland for three years, and took a large amount of evidence, had been acted upon, and if all the millions of money which have been spent to impoverish and pauperise the people of Ireland had been spent upon the reclamation of land in Ireland and upon the drainage and fencing of land instead of upon building large workhouses and driving the people into them against their will, we should not have been here to-day telling the sad and doleful tales that have been told by hon. Gentlemen from all parts of Ireland of the condition of the country as it is at the present time. The recommendations of that Commission were set aside. Lord John Russell sent over Mr. Nicholls, who spent six weeks in Ireland, and who had had some knowledge of the administration of the poor law in England. He travelled about Ireland for six weeks, and then he made a report upon the condition of the poor to Lord John Russell and his Government. The recommendations made after that six weeks' travel in Ireland by Mr. Nicholls were accepted, and the recommendations made in the Report of the Commission presided over by Archbishop Whateley were set aside. Therefore, the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Westmeath is one that ought to be taken to heart by those responsible for the government of Ireland. That ought to be borne in mind by the Chief Secretary if he intends to add one more laurel to the wreath that will surround his brow when he retires from the government of Ireland. At that time no less than 40,000 migratory labourers left Ireland every year to seek employment in this country. At the present time no less than 25,000 migratory labourers from Ireland come over to England and Scotland for a few months every year to earn money to pay the rent for the land they retain in Ireland. Therefore there is an abundance of cheap labour to be had in Ireland if only the recommendations of these various Commissions are acted upon. The result of
1726
carrying out those recommendations will be that not only will unemployment be relieved, but arterial drainage would be cheaply brought about. We have had the story told of the River Bann and the River Barrow, and I am not going to go over all that again. The House is acquainted with the result of these various, floodings, which are detrimental to the health of the people. It has, however, not been mentioned here, although it was before the Royal Commission, that during the existence of these floods the roads were rendered impassable, and thereby the trade of the country was dislocated. That means that there is a great loss to the people. I desire to put one more view before the House. It is with regard to the obligation that devolves upon the Government to carry out this work in such a manner that it will be effective and effectual. If there was one conviction stronger than another which animated the various Royal Commissions it was that the State, and the State alone, should carry out arterial drainage in Ireland. I have pointed out on former occasions that other nations have appreciated this great question, and attempted to remedy the evil which it causes. In all countries in Europe it has been regarded as a national question. In France, after the war with Germany, the first thing which the Government of France turned its attention to in 1871 was the waterways. In the Rhone district they spent £15,000 per mile, on the River Seine they spent £17,600 per mile, and between 1871 and 1900 the French Government on its waterways spent £28,000,000 on its arterial drainage. Look at what Germany has done. They have a telegraphic and a telephonic system whereby the guardian of the upper reaches of their rivers advise the people in the lower reaches whether the waters are likely to flood their lands or not. The rivers are. watched with zealous care, and millions of pounds are spent every decade in order to prevent the rivers overflowing the land. Every penny of this money is spent by the State. We do not ask for that. In Holland no less a sum than one equal to the amount of the entire national debt of Great Britain has been spent. By the year 1853 Holland had spent £600,000,000 of money on its waterways, and it has been spending money ever since. Belgium, in like manner, has spent £25,000.000 of money on its waterways. In these countries, where there is a limit of land and where it has to be conserved, it is a national duty

1727
to see that there is arterial drainage. We are not asking for all that. In all the demands from Ireland it has always been stated that the farmers and landlords are willing to bear their fair share of the cost. They have never demurred to any portion of the cost being placed on them. We have never asked for what other countries have readily granted.
There have to-night been many quotations given to the House, and I shall not weary the House with more than one. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I inflict it upon the House, because I wish to show that while Commissions in the past have sanctioned this idea of State aid, the most recent Commission has also done so. Sir Alexander Binnie, in the course of taking evidence, gave expression to this view during the examination of the Member for South Kildare. The hon. Member and myself have the catchment area in our Constituencies, and thousands of acres of the best land are flooded three times a year. My colleague enforced this fact upon the Commission, and Sir Alexander Binnie stated "that the whole of the cost cannot be done by local effort. There is a duty on the State as well as a duty on the part of the people, and it is perfectly clear that some grant in aid should be made." That was the dictum of the chairman of that Commission. I now come to the suggestion of my hon. Friend, whose constituents are affected by the present state of things. We know and accept the difficulty of the Chief Secretary with regard to a certain other body. Last year, in answer to a question put by myself, he stated his difficulty in the matter. We know that difficulty exists. Those who were concerned with these floods on the Barrow endeavoured to get some help from the Chief Secretary without waiting for a great comprehensive scheme. My hon. Friend has alluded to some £50,000. What is the genesis of that £50,000? We cast our minds about for some solution for this difficulty, and pending a larger scheme we thought it might be possible to get something done to relieve the people from the disastrous effects consequent on the floods to which they were subjected. As the House is well aware from the very exhaustive and able speech of the Member for South Antrim some attempts were made to keep the Bann waters within bound. The sum of money spent was £150,000. and workmen were at work for 12 years. Nothing was done, however, for the Barrow, and
1728
there would be no jealousy on the part of those who represent the North of Ireland if we could get something done pending a larger scheme. We found that there existed a sum of money in the hands of the authorities of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland, and that it amounted nearly to £400,000. I know the answer. The hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench shakes his head. I can point him to the Report where this fact is stated. The money is saved for future purposes. I am quite aware that the £400,000 is represented in reports as being non-existent. We know very well that it is by a clerical legerdemain that £380,000 has disappeared from view. But that does not blind us. We know that the money is there. A liberal interpretation of the Act which created the Department over which the hon. Gentleman presides would enable the Department to set aside £50,000 in order to carry out the experiment. We made a representation to that effect to a Commission which was then sitting. That representation was signed by all the Members who represented constituencies through which the Barrow flowed, and we pointed out that in our opinion there was an immediate necessity for applying a remedy to this state of things. We desire to suggest that whereas the Government were not prepared to introduce a comprehensive scheme a small sum should be granted out of the money in the hands of the Department. We recommended that the sum to be granted should be £50,000, and should be so spent as to form part of an extensive scheme. That was a practical proposal The money is there. It cannot possibly have been used. Reports are in the Department which show that the money is there with accrued interest. The hon. Gentleman will not say that he has spent that £400,000. The actual amount is really £380,000, and he cannot say that it has melted into air. The money is there and the power to use it is there also. We submitted the proposal of £50,000 to Sir Alexander Binnie. He states, in the body of his Report, that if £50,000 were to be expended in a specific manner, and would form part of a general scheme, it would abate the evil. He absolutely accepted our suggestion. He has embodied it in his Report. That is not all. We asked the engineers of two counties through which the Barrow flows to consider the matter and to make a report, and they have made the report already referred to, which absolutely bears out Sir

1729
Alexander Binnie's report that £50,000 wisely expended on the upper reaches of this river will abate, to a great extent, the evil. We have never departed from that practical suggestion, and I sincerely hope it will be considered by the Government. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to stand up and say the heart of the Treasury is still hard, and that he is not going to bring forward any series of schemes, or a great comprehensive scheme like that brought forward by Mr. Balfour, if he is not prepared to bring forward such a comprehensive scheme as that, I hope he will say that he will at least sanction the suggestion which we have made, namely, to ear-mark that £50,000 of public money, which, I submit, can be used to carry out the suggestion made by us and supported by Sir Alexander Binnie. I do, from a full consideration of this matter, assert that the evil will be to some extent abated and the groundwork laid, in order that a great and more extensive scheme may be entered upon in future.—
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I am sure hon. Members of the House who have had the advantage of listening to this Debate will admit that they have listened to most interesting speeches, and although the question is undoubtedly an old one, and has been before my predecessors in this House for a very long time, I think I shall be able to show that its urgency is even greater than ever. It is a question which has by no means become stale. Although I must ask the attention of the House while I deal with a little history, I do not propose to go back any length of time. But I was rather struck by reading the preamble of an Act of Parliament, namely, More O'Ferrall's Act., passed in 1831, at a time when Acts of Parliament had preambles, a habit which has been lost, though I, for my part, regret it, for they generally conveyed to the ordinary reader more than was to be gained by a perusal of the Act itself. The preamble of this Act reads:—
"Whereas it has been ascertained as well by the report of certain commissioners as otherwise that there are throughout Ireland contiguous to the banks of rivers and streams and lakes many large tracts covered with water for pot less than half the year, some periodically Hooded and others subject to frequent damage and inundation by reason of the defect of embankments and interruptions in the channels of such rivers and streams: and whereas the said tracts of land comprise generally the finest alluvial soil, and although in their present condition of little Value would if protected against inundation become productive and fertile in an eminent degree: and whereas the reclamation and protection of such lands would be advantageous to the proprietors thereof and would conduce to the health of such dis-
1730
tricts, and afford beneficial employment to the distressed labouring poor, but by reason of the various modifications of interests and estates in such lands and the legal incapacity of persons having such, interests and. the defect of co-operation in them, the same cannot be accompanied without the authority of Parliament."
That preamble represents very accurately the state of things which has been represented to me in the course of the Debate this afternoon. But it would he a mistake to suppose that nothing has been done between 1831 and the present time, because this question of drainage—arterial and other drainage—in Ireland has been made; the subject-matter of at least 20 or 25 Acts of Parliament, and those Acts present the usual characteristics of modern Acts of Parliament—namely, that they are, for the most part, wholly unintelligible, and can only be made to be intelligible by references backwards and forwards in a manner calculated to destroy such intelligence as the Chief Secretary for Ireland is likely to possess. Nevertheless, these Acts of Parliament are worth considering. They may be divided into two divisions. There were the Acts of Parliament from 1843 to 1863, and those from 1803 down to the present time, and the difference between these two codes or schemes relating to drainage in Ireland was practically this: that under the first code the initiative and the preparation for carrying into execution these works lay with the Board of Works—lay with the persons who were entrusted with the duty of carrying out the proposal:—
"Under the provisions of these earlier works the Board of Works on receipt of an application and the deposit to cover preliminary expenses from any persons interested in lands liable to be flooded might cause a survey and inspection to be made, and might, if they thought fit, prepare maps, plans and section of the works which they proposed, and (having obtained the assent of the proprietors of two-thirds in extent of the lands to be improved), might publish a declaration describing the nature and estimated effect of the proposed works and the proposed incidence of the charges. From this declaration there was an appeal to the County Court Judge. The preliminary steps including any appeal having been taken, the Board of Works might execute the works, and on their completion make an award specifying the proportion in which the cost of construction and maintenance should be borne by the improved lands."
Well, you see how the Board of Works had charge of these important drainage works. These Acts had contemplated that private funds should bear the main cost of the work, but that expectation was never realised, and nine-tenths of the money for the drainage scheme under this first code was obtained from the Treasury by way of grant or loan, and how much of the loan had to be remitted I will tell the House in a moment. Now, under this first drainage scheme a good deal of progress was made, although I quite agree that the Board of Works could be very harshly

1731
criticised for the manner in which they carried them out. But you must always bear in mind in regard to all these hydraulic drainage schemes that experience has shown where these works were done by the Board of Works or as under the subsequent Acts of Parliament, where the initiative lay with owners you always find the same mistake made in every one of these schemes. Such is the sanguinity of the Irish disposition and of persons concerned in beneficial work of this kind, they always underestimate the cost and over-estimate the value of the work. That has been the practice from the beginning of these arterial drainage operations in Ireland down to this moment. At all events, under these preliminary Acts 142 various schemes were proceeded with, and the Committee in 1852 reported that they were doing well but for the intervention of the famine. The famine undoubtedly upset the whole scheme of these works, because different measures were adopted to meet an emergency and to supply work for people in Ireland. They dispensed with the necessity for obtaining the help of two-thirds of the proprietors, and generally went ahead in a somewhat reckless and perhaps ill-considered though humane manner. And in the operations of these Acts, amended under the pressure of the famine, some 120 drainage districts were appointed in all parts of Ireland, and they have done a good deal of good work under the initiative of the Board of Works. The Board of Works, always at a loss to understand why they were unpopular, have suggested to me that one reason may be due to the fact that all of their estimates were grossly underneath what they ought to be for the preparation of the works. Whether they were entitled to think that depends on the view you take of the powers of the hydraulic engineers who estimate what the cost will be. It would be rash to assume that engineers to-day are to be relied on very much more than the engineers employed by the Board of Works in those days. In these cases the works sometimes cost 50 per cent. more than the estimate, and no doubt that created great unpopularity, and the only thing is I think hon. Members will be rash if they assume that engineers of to-day are very much wiser than the engineers of a generation or two ago. The matter hardly admits of precise and careful calculation. At all events, the result is that after 1862 a new scheme was devised. and the proprietors took the place of the Board of Works, and they them-
1732
selves undertook to carry out the work and employ their own engineers. But, unfortunately, the proprietors and their advisers were no better or successful in estimating the precise cost of these works than the Board of Works in earlier days, and the fact of the matter is there has been spent in Ireland under the operation of these various Acts of Parliament in various drainage schemes all over Ireland something like three millions of money, and that three millions of money is now sunk in these various undertakings. Now, of that money £2,396,612 was the total expenditure under earlier Acts of Parliament, and only one million of that has been charged against the proprietors; the balance of 1½ millions consisted either of free grants or loans which have been remitted by the Treasury. Therefore it has been borne in mind that of this £3,000,000 worth of work that has been done in Ireland to promote drainage, the greater part of it has been borne by the Imperial Exchequer, and, therefore, it is the Imperial Exchequer that has an active interest which it ought not to lose sight of, in seeing that these works, which have cost this large sum of money, are properly maintained, which at the present moment is not the case. That is a part of the case which I shall call special attention to in a moment.
I will not go into the details of the manner in which the drainage boards are elected, but the House will understand perfectly well two great facts which have come to light since the dates I am speaking of. One is, that we have now got in Ireland, thanks to a Conservative Government, a system of local government which fully deserves the praise which has been bestowed upon it by the Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway, and which I have no doubt will be re-echoed by Gentlemen sitting above the Gangway. It is certainly a remarkable thing that the Irish people should have been able, without any previous experience, or very little experience, to have undertaken at the same time the work of district councils and county councils, and it is a matter of congratulation that they are able to carry on these councils, under that which is recognised in Ireland as a competent local system of government. It is a most successful enterprise and a most courageous one for the Conservative party to have undertaken at the time, and perhaps it is a presage of what the Conservative party will do in the future when it is again in power. But at all events you have now got this system

1733
of government, and after that you have the Land Purchase Measures, under which a great part of the land of Ireland is now in the occupation of those who were formerly tenant occupiers, and these facts have upset and rendered obsolete, old-fashioned and extinct all those elaborate provisions under the old Acts of Parliament from 1840 up to the present time. They are no longer applicable. That will be seen in a moment, but the whole of those earlier Acts of Parliament were passed upon the assumption that the proprietors directly interested in the prevention of these lands from being flooded and in procuring arterial drainage were comparatively few in number, and were, in the first place, well able to play the part of a Board, and carry out these works and see them maintained, and also to distribute the cost in such a manner as to make it easy to collect. That is no longer the case, and in one case which is referred to the Report, where two or three years ago there were only 200 or 300 landlords there are now 2,000, and with land purchase proceeding at the rate it is there will be soon 3,000, and the whole scheme of election and representation of these drainage boards is obsolete and impossible, while in some instances the collection of the dues which in some cases amount to but a few pence, also becomes impossible. We are face to face with this: That there has been an expenditure of public money amounting to £3,000,000 under a large scheme, and measures for the maintenance of that scheme depend upon Boards which are antiquated, and the exercise of whose duty of securing the means for maintaining it is past praying for, and it is impossible for them to do so. The Viceregal Commission appointed, therefore, thought that at the earliest possible time. Parliament should deal with this question, and should by some process hand over the great task of maintaining these works to local authorities or to committees of local authorities, or county councils, because these drainage schemes very often affect four or five counties, and you can only properly carry them out by a system of joint committees. The present danger is very great. In the old days the landlords on a large scale were able to look after these works, and when rivers got blocked up or silted with easily removable obstacles they at once set to work themselves, and at some expense cleaned out the bed of the river and removed these obstructions, thereby preventing a great deal of the flooding which now takes place,
1734
but now there is nobody, owing to the smallness of the proprietors and the difficulty of getting them to co-operate together, to do that work. But a great, deal of flooding is occasioned by things which could be easily dealt with, and would have been dealt with, by the large proprietors in the earlier days. Therefore we see a great deal of damage done by neglect of drainage schemes which ought to be properly maintained.
I quite agree with what was said by the hon. Baronet the Member for Westmeath that the longer the delay is the more expensive they become, and that what you want is somebody on the spot to act promptly and speedily and repay themselves by striking a rate in the ordinary way. The first thing that is apparent is that unless we do so, incredible damage will be done to property in Ireland in which the Imperial Exchequer is largely concerned through the expenditure of something like £100,000,000 to £200,000,000. It is our obvious duty at the earliest possible moment to avail ourselves of the suggestions of this Commission, and to carry out some legislative precedure which would transfer to these local authorities the task of maintaining arterial drainage works. Therefore, with regard to that part of the case, I have only to say that the Government feel that they cannot allow the report of the Viceregal Commission to lie unacted upon a day longer than is absolutely necessary, and that they will consider, and are considering, proposals that will give statutory enactment to at all events the majority of the recommendations of that body. That carries us some way, but not, of course, the whole way that is desired. If you are to deal with arterial drainage in Ireland, on anything like a heroic scale, not only does it involve large sums of money, but it also involves the necessity of a proper survey, and the question being treated to some extent as a whole, because I am confident that you cannot rely upon local information upon this subject altogether. The local interests are so great for the carrying out of some particular scheme at some particular place, and people are not always ready to recognise the obligations which owners of one portion of a river owe to owners of another portion of a river, but each is so anxious to carry out some work which benefits himself immediately, that sometimes he is indifferent to the consequences to the land of persons living some way off, though on the. banks of the same stream. I think all are agreed

1735
that some central authority would be necessary in order to settle schemes involving such large sums of money. You have also to bear this in mind, that you cannot, when you come to the outfall of the river, where works have to be carried on of a very costly character, hope to recover any portion of the cost of that work from the owners in other reaches of the stream. Therefore, you have to deal with the cost which can be made reproductive, and which, therefore, can be properly charged upon the persons who are benefited by it, and the greater part of the cost at the outfall of the water, where the works must be carried on by some central authority at the expense of the State.
I find myself, therefore, in this position, that so far as the maintenance of the existing works are concerned, I feel that they are in great peril. I feel that every day that goes by makes that worse and adds to the danger to the land adjoining them, and also increases the cost of carrying out proper repairs and keeping them at a proper pitch of working order. There is no use, I think, in relying upon the machinery of the present drainage board. Some people anticipate opposition from the drainage board. I do not think that need now be anticipated. The difficulty arises in this way. You cannot expect those landlords who have not sold, but who are expecting to sell, to take any great or absorbing interest in these drainage works, nor can you expect them, nor is it reasonable that they should do so, to incur expenditure and charge this very land which they expect to sell with annual charges of this sort, and, consequently, there is a regrettable tendency, that is a very natural one, in Ireland, to do nothing in the way of carrying on these existing drainage works and repairing them, because the landlords hope to sell their lands and transfer to the shoulders of the purchasers or to the State, the obligation of maintaining these proper drainage schemes. Therefore, as I have said, the situation is one of periil. It is one which cannot remain on the present footing, and legislation, in my opinion, is urgently necessary in order to enable this work to be done.
I entirely sympathise with the hon. Member in regard to these matters, and I also sympathised with him when he said he did not want my sympathy. What is the good of sympathy? he said. I quite agree with that, On the other hand he
1736
wants cash. I am not at this moment denying that there is a case for cash, but I must ask him to bear in mind that there are some other countries besides Ireland, and if he consults his English friends he will find that vast sums of money have been lost by English landlords under drainage schemes, and the spectacle of land under water, I am afraid, is not confined to his own country, but it is a sight with which those living in the flat countries, in the fens in England, are also familiar. We know the damage done by flooding, and how desirable it would be to get large grants from the State for arterial drainage, and therefore we must be a little careful in this matter. One hon. Member said that whether it cost 10 millions or 50 millions was to him a matter of little moment. There was plenty of money in the British Treasury, all put there by Ireland, and therefore schemes must be carried out in a lavish way. That would be a theory which it would be absurd for me to support. The amount of money in the British Treasury is very small. The difficulty of getting it out is very great, and although I shall always continue to get as much as I can for the country of my temporary adoption I think it is really unreasonable for hon. Members to get up and speak as if it could be had only for the asking, because, after all, there are obligations on people themselves to aid themselves, and it is undoubtedly also the fact that one or two schemes—notably one of the Leader of the Opposition—fell to the ground, because, although he was prepared to make a free grant of £215,000, the cost of the works very much exceeded that, and the difficulty of getting the balance was so great that this tender of £215,000, an offer which was made by the, right hon. Gentleman when he was Chief Secretary, actually fell through. There is, therefore, a difficulty in a matter of that sort. Then they come to the individual cases, and, of course, we know what those individual cases are. They are the Barrow and the Bann. Every Chief Secretary knows about the Barrow and the Bann. The case of the Barrow is a very grievous case so far as the health and welfare and the value of the crops of the people are concerned. I have never read more distressing evidence than that which I have had to read in the various Reports of Commissions on the state of things in the Barrow. On the other hand, the Bann has some claim from the fact that they have spent already £109,000 I think.
Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: £166,000, when you take into consideration the interest.
Mr. BIRRELL: I dare say, but I was thinking of the capital sum. There was a free grant of £40,000, and the total capital expenditure on the whole thing was something like £150,000. At all events, they have paid money, and some, I am afraid, are continuing to pay it even yet, and therefore they have, as against the Barrow, which has not yet had to contribute on its own account, a good claim. But they both have, no doubt, excellent claims so far as any claims are good for the purpose of State assistance, and I can only hope that any money which is forthcoming will be better spent than has been the case in the past, and that schemes may not result in so much disappointment and lack of satisfaction to the persons most concerned, because certainly no one can read the appendices to this last Viceregal report, which show the expenditure of these three millions, without seeing that a great deal of it has been most wastefully spent, and that the results are by no means adequate to what was hoped by those who made the advances. The great bulk of that three millions, although by the machinery of the law it was contemplated to be paid by the Irish people themselves, has been paid out of the Imperial Exchequer.
Mr. BURKE: The free gift to the Bann at that time was £109,000.
Mr. BIRRELL: I thought that was the contemplated expenditure on the whole scheme.
Mr. BURKE: £110,000 was to be paid by the people.
Mr. BIRRELL: Suppose £110,000 by the people and £40,000 as a free grant, the people who advanced the £110,000 got the benefits, such as they were, of the works which were executed in exchange for it. Now the immediate case of the Barrow is that they want an advance of £50,000 for the purpose of cleaning the bed of the river of the silt that has accumulated during the last few years. That scheme is at the present moment before the Treasury. I received a deputation in Dublin, and another waited upon me in London, where they had the advantage of seeing a representative of the Treasury, and the only doubts were as to whether the £50,000 would not be wholly thrown away. It is impossible to approach this question without remembering that enormous sums of
1738
money have been thrown away in the past, and without asking whether there is any reason to believe that this sum of £50,000 could be treated as a permanent sum; which would remain as a useful result, and lead up to larger sums being expended in wider schemes, because it is admitted that this £50,000 is a mere bagatelle compared with what eventually will have to be spent if you are to deal satisfactorily with this very expensive river. On the other hand, few Members below or above the Gangway ought to complain of the Treasury—once bit twice shy—being a little sceptical as to whether so small a sum as £50,000 expended in this particular way would be a. wise expenditure of public money. You come to us and tell us this sum of £50,000 will do a particular piece of work, which you are satisfied will remain to the permanent good of the river, and will not be thrown away. I am not expressing any opinion on that subject, in fact so far as I have an opinion I come to the conclusion, as I believe also did my immediate predecessor, Mr. Bryce, that the scheme is a good scheme, and it was one which, though not unexposed to risk, was still worthy of being acted upon, having regard to the admitted dreadful consequences of allowing lands so close to the people, as many of these lands are, to be flooded in the way they constantly are. The evidence on that point was quite overwhelming. The scheme is still before the Treasury, and so far as I have any power of enforcing what is my view I shall continue to enforce it. I have had some success with the Treasury, though not as much as I should like, and I may have success in this mattter, but I cannot honestly make any promise or pledge to do anything more than to continue to enforce that view, and to obtain from them, which I have not yet done on the second occasion, a reply to the request which I have made.
Mr. KILBRIDE: What is the opinion of the Board of Works with regard to that scheme?
Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know that I can usefully go into that matter. The Board of Works is, I think, rather indisposed to believe that the money would be perfectly safely and wisely spent, and you have to bear in mind that, inasmuch as it is an advance under the Imperial Exchequer, the Treasury are entitled to have their advisers, and their advisers, for good or for ill, are the Board of Works, and I cannot be expected to tell the Treasury that they shall pay no attention to the engineers of

1739
the Board of Works. That is an element in the case, and an element in the case it must remain. But, at the same time, the Treasury are quite accessible to argument on the subject, and I am sure if they could be satisfied that this sum would really bring about the results which it is anticipated it would do by those who support it, I have very little doubt that the money would be forthcoming. But the difficulty is one which I am still contending with. There is a real difficulty, and one which I am not justified for a moment in treating as if it were not still a serious difficulty in my way.
In reference to what fell from the hon. Gentleman opposite with regard to the river with which he is closely associated, the Board of Works authorise me to say that they never dreamt of interfering or forbidding the opening of the sluices in the way that he desired. All they felt was that they could not do it without the consent of the Navigation Board, and if, as I understand, the Navigation Board are desirous that this should be done, he may take it from me that no objection whatever will be made by the Board of Works to what he wishes being carried out. I think that also applies to the introduction of a sluice into the mill-race, but I will communicate personally with the hon. Gentleman on the subject. The Board of Works assure me that their only difficulty was that they felt they ought not to take upon themselves anything which might be injurious to the interest of the Navigation Board. They go on to say they do not think any very great benefit will result from the opening of the gates, but the hon. Gentleman is perfectly satisfied to run the risk of that. To that small extent, therefore, the Board of Works may be dismissed from his mind.
I was interested to hear from the hon. Member for Kildare that the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture has lurking in his pocket the sum of £400,000. If that were so it would indeed be a pity if this £50,000 we are in search of could not be obtained from that source. My right hon. Friend denies the existence of that sum of money, and' the House will, perhaps, permit him to give his reasons for denying it. The Government are firmly convinced of the necessity, at the earliest possible moment, of introducing legislation of the character that I have described. I cannot promise to do it this Session. It would be absurd for me to contend that there is Parliamentary time
1740
at our disposal for that purpose, but I hope at the earliest possible opportunity the legislation which is in course of preparation will be introduced to the notice of the House. With regard to obtaining grants of money for particular schemes, it is very difficult to get money, and there are many schemes in Ireland competing one with another. I could not but notice that there was some reticence on that subject by one speaker opposite, who rather intimated that if Gentlemen below the Gangway would only cease making their demands in certain directions the money might be forthcoming. I do not enter into that at all. No one can deny that Ireland is a poor country, and presents a great many claims upon the attention of the Treasury. Education alone might very well absorb large grants of money, and I do not think anyone who has seen the result which has followed from labourers' cottages will for a moment say that one farthing of that has been otherwise than wisely and nobly spent. Fisheries, afforestation—all these schemes are good in themselves. The only thing is, unfortunately, there is not enough land in Ireland to go round, and there is not money enough even in the wealthy British Treasury to meet all the demands which might be usefully made to secure the welfare of Ireland. I shall not be neglectful of my duty.
Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: The Chief Secretary has made about as satisfactory a speech as we expected from him. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman above the Gangway on the gigantic triumph which he has achieved on this memorable night in the history of this particular river in getting this sluice opened.
Mr. BARRIE: I have just received a note to say that even with regard to the sluice the Chief Secretary has made a mistake.
Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I was rather premature in my congratulations, but I note, as perhaps even more satisfactory in the speech of the Chief Secretary, that the question of the grant of £50,000 for the River Barrow is still under the consideration of the Treasury. I have to say quite candidly that I rise to take part in this Debate with a feeling of almost sickening despair. Let me say a word first about the audience to which the Debate has been addressed. We have had in the last half hour, largely due to the fact that so attractive a speaker as the Chief Secretary was on his legs, a

1741
slight English incursion, but up to the last half hour England was represented by numbers varying from two to six Members. We had speeches in this particular Debate to what was practically an Irish House of Commons. Only Irish Members were here, united and agreed, I am glad to say for once. We have had an Irish House of Commons with power to talk, but no power to act. I would have been partially consoled even for that fact if I thought this Debate was going to serve as a propaganda, and a means of instructing a large number of the Members of the House of Commons who, with all due respect to them, are very ignorant of some of the questions which affect Ireland. I would have liked the whole of the Liberal and Conservative party to have been present if only to hear the speech of the hon. Member for South Antrim. May I congratulate him on the excellence of his tone and the cogency of his argument. In that speech he began by declaring that he was opposed to Home Rule. I never heard a more convincing indictment of the present system, and a more convincing argument in favour of Home Rule. I say in passing that I rather regret the absence of two English Members whom I should have liked to hear his comments. One is the hon. Member for Colchester, and the other a member of his firm. They are both partners of the firm of Pearson and Son.
I should have liked them to hear the comments which were made with regard to the unreliability of the estimates of hydraulic engineers. These gentlemen would have been able to state that sitting in their offices in London they were able to arrange the estimates and details for three or four tunnels not under the comparatively smooth waters of the Barrow and the Bann, but under the almost tempestuous and broad waters that surround the city city of New York. I am sure they were able to do so without underestimating the cost or diminishing their profits on the transaction. They would have been able to show at least that the work of hydraulic engineers, if conducted by skilful men, and not by a futile, insolent, and ineffective public Department in Ireland, has been brought to something like an exact science. What is the evil which has been brought before the House to-day? As was said in the preamble of the Act of, I think, 1831, a large tract of the best soil in Ireland is yearly under water. The crops and other property are destroyed, and, what is worse, the health of the people is destroyed.
1742
Many quotations have been made to-night, but I confess that the one that produced the most effect on my mind was that made by the hon. Member for South Antrim. The hon. Member quoted from the report of a meeting held in Belfast, which was attended by many sound Unionists, including our late lamented friend, Colonel Saunderson. The report says that one of the dispensary medical officers practising in part of the flooded area, who had had twenty-four years' experience of. it, stated that he had attended; many serious cases of illness and registered the deaths of many persons who had suffered from pulmonary disease, and he attributed the cause of their illness to these floods. Mark this passage: "In fact the amount of sickness and death in this district in each year varies in proportion to the extent and duration of the floods during the previous year." The whole world has been shocked at the story of what has come to be called the white plague in Ireland, namely, the number of deaths from tuberculosis. What is the explanation? All kinds of explanation have been given—insanitary dwellings and ignorance among the people. Here we have it stated that at least one of the causes of the disease is to be found in the periodic flooding of the districts. It is something rather sickening, and almost approaching hypocrisy, to be holding exhibitions, giving lectures, and making appeals about tuberculosis—though, far be it from me to question the motives of the people who conduct those things—it is something approaching hypocrisy to talk of these wretched superficial features of this terrible scourge in Ireland, while every year over nearly 100,000 acres you have every house inundated by floods which leave the seeds of infection. The Chief Secretary is as kind, benevolent, and humane a man as ever occupied his great office, and when he comes to the House of Commons what is his answer? I cannot do anything. Large sums of money are required to deal with the scheme as a whole. I have not even the money in small sums which are required to deal with the scheme in part; I cannot give you a penny." That is the impotent answer the Chief Secretary is compelled to give, speaking on behalf of the richest country in the world, and dealing with a country which the British Government insists on governing. It is absurd in dealing with this matter to talk about floods in England, and to say that there is no public money for them.

1743
That does not meet the case. England can take care of herself. If she neglects this matter, that is her affair. She has a big majority in Parliament, and they could ask for money. What we in Ireland want is a proportion of the £10,000,000 which we contribute. Of that sum we want £200,000 a year for the purpose of Saving the property of the farmers, and what is to our mind the more serious, vital, and appealing question, the saving of the lives of the human beings who every year are, as the result of these floods, infected with disease. I am glad that this Debate has brought out what is an almost forgotten or ignored feature of the Irish question. You hear a great deal about the Irish land question. You have hon. Members calling attention to the disturbances in portions of Ireland, and you have had a great controversy upon the Church, but one thing which is almost entirely ignored by the great mass of the English people is that the administration of Ireland is one of the most futile, ineffective, tragical, and disastrous in the whole history of the world. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the most costly."] And the most costly, of course. I do protest my opinion that 25 per cent. of the deaths in Ireland are avoidable, and that they are caused by bad hygiene, floods, bad food, and the want of the vitalising influence of a public department supported by and responsible to Irishmen. I think the right hon. Gentleman was not quite just to the people of these districts in what he said about them. They have never refused to contribute their quota to the expense and settlement of this matter. As was said by the hon. Member for South Antrim in regard to the River Bann, the people have given £164,000 towards the solution of the problem, with the result that things are as bad now as if every single sovereign of that money had been thrown into the waters of Lough Neagh instead of going into the coffers of contractors. They are not allowed to do this Work properly, because the British Government is not able to aid them. Parliament cannot do it, and the Chief Secretary cannot do it, but then you might fall back on administration. Good administration sometimes takes the place of central government. But what is the administration in Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman affects a simple and childlike surprise to hear that the Board of Works is unpopular. I will tell you why they are so Unpopular. There is in the county of
1744
Wicklow, at Graystones, a sea wall built by the Board of Works which is already falling away. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is away."] It has disappeared. In Bray there is the simulacrum and ghost of a harbour where now you can drive a coach and four, so dry is it. In Arklow there is a harbour into which no ship can get.
Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: It is all right now.
Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am glad to hear it.
Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: What I mean to say is that out of a special grant of £54,000 a sum has been expended on the repair of Arklow Harbour. Everyone admits now that the harbour has been improved.
Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am very glad to hear it. If you go to the town of Wicklow, in the same county—this makes four places in that one county—you find a harbour which is only now at last beginning to be of some use since an additional sum of £14,000 has been expended on it. Why is the Board of Works unpopular? I have given cases of its gross incompetence. But there was another kind of Board of Works presented by my hon. Friend the Member for East Queen's County. The county council of Queen's County presented what we regard as a most legitimate and most respectful request to the Board of Works for the maps and plans which they had with regard to the River Barrow. Does anybody think that if any great public body in England presented a request of that kind to any Government office in England the request would not be immediately complied with as a matter of course? What is a public Department in England? What it ought to be in any country—a servant of the public, paid by the public for doing the work of the public, and accessible to all the public—if it be properly conducted—ready, willing, and anxious to give all the information to the public which the public may think will enlighten them or help them in any work which they have in hand. Is not that the true and only really popular conception of a public Department? What is it that we find under the Board of Works in Ireland An insolent and arrogant refusal of information, as if the people of Ireland existed for the payment of the salaries of these petty Czars, who are naturally distrusted and hated by the people for the manner in which they behave. There you have this extraordinary set of circumstances that the

1745
people cannot do anything to remedy these grievances, though they are willing to pay their share of it. The Chief Secretary and the House of Commons cannot do anything, though I am sure the Chief Secretary is most anxious to do it, and at the head, or, rather, the tail, of the whole grim procession comes in the unrepresentative alien hostile narrow and incompetent public department, mismanaging everything and flouting the most simple request for information that is addressed to it. That is how Ireland is governed.
Why do I dwell on that point? I do not know any more misleading dictum ever uttered by any public man, though no dictum was ever uttered with greater friendliness or honesty, than that of the late Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman. He said, in a passage which is now historic, that good government is no substitute for self-government. That is quite true, but what a pathetically false representation of the real alternative in Irish life and Irish government it presents? Good government is no substitute for self-government. If that were in question, though our national demand would still be made and we would still insist on it, every man of us, if that were only the reality of the Irish demand, the Irish case would be very different from what it is. But that is not the case. The government of Ireland is not only not self-government, is not only not good government, but is the worst government that exists in Europe. When I heard my friends describe how year after year and decade after decade I might almost say century after century—because the case of the Bann, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for South Antrim, goes back 150 years—this damage has been going on unchecked, and when I heard of towns falling into decay owing to the flooding of land year after year and generation after generation, and when I heard of crops rotting in the ground because of these floods, I began to think I was hearing about Turkey, and I almost began even to wish that instead of having to govern us a benevolent middle-aged Englishman like my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary—that is what he calls himself, though I would call him an eternal middle-aged boy, but I accept his description—I began almost to wish that instead of being governed by a benevolent middle-aged Englishman in Ireland we had the advantage of being governed by a vigorous, sensible young Turk.
Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: I wish to refer to a statement of the hon. and learned Mem-
1746
ber for South Kildare. He stated that the Department had something like £400,000 of a surplus and that it would be within its power to contribute say £50,000 for the drainage of the Barrow or any other drainage purposes. I do not dispute the power that the Department would have under the Act of 1899, but what I wish to say is this, that in the early years of the Department a very large surplus was amassed. I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman was far wrong when he said it was £400,000. I think, speaking from memory, that that is substantially accurate. That surplus arose in this way. When the Act of 1899 was passed, the money to be contributed became payable to us at once. The result was that large sums were paid into the Department before the schemes of the Department were ready to be put into operation and these monies became what was known in the Department as the reserve fund. Since then the work has very largely extended. As hon. Gentlemen know, in the Act itself we were charged to pay, for different purposes, very large amounts. I may mention that during the past five years we have given £50,000 for the work of the Congested Districts Boards, and we have had to contribute to a great variety of other purposes that had to be paid for. But I speak now for a period of which I have personal knowledge, and I should say again, speaking roughly, from recollection of the last figure that I saw when the Board met that the surplus at the present moment is perhaps a little over £160,000. That is the reserve fund. My fear is that if a Department like the Department of Agriculture stores up a reserve fund, it would be raided. That was my fear, and I resolved to spend the money. The money has been earmarked by the Agricultural Board until only £20,000 is left. £50,000 was set aside for agricultural schemes and agricultural education. £50,000 was set aside for the purposes of a loan fund, to grant loans which it is necessary to grant to farmers and others. Other sums have been allocated and earmarked for other work, and I know for a fact that at the present moment there is no more than £20,000, which may be called a reserve fund. So far as the actual income of the Department is concerned, we are working up to the last shilling coming in, and the reserve fund has been reduced to the amount I have stated, but I quite agree that at one period there was a very large reserve.
Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: May I make a personal explanation by leave of the House? What I had in my mind were two Reports of the Department. One, for 1905–6, says:—
"The nominal or face value of the securities held on 31st March, 1906, including £20,000 Consols transferred from the Board of Works to the Department in April, 11104, was £379,431…. Deducting the liabilities of £122,540 from the total sum of £395,230 there remained a sum of £272,690."
The second Report, for 1906–7 (the Report for 1907–8 is not yet out), states:—
"The nominal or face value of the securities held on 31st March, 1907, including £20,000 Consols transferred from the Board of Works to the Department in April, 1904, was £379,431; and their cash value was £353,290…. Deducting the liabilities from the sum of £353,290, there remained a sum of £229,081…"
I do not think it is too much to ask for £50,000 out of that.
Mr. KILBRIDE: On the general question of this Motion, I do not think the Irish people will derive much satisfaction from the reply of the Chief Secretary, because he has told us that this year, at all events, in the present condition of public business, it would be impossible for him to introduce legislation dealing with the large and comprehensive question of arterial drainage in Ireland. That is no new story. Whenever grievances are brought forward in this House, we are usually met by right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench with the statement that the condition of public business is such that Parliament has no time to deal with Irish grievances. That is one of the main arguments put forward over; and over again by Irish Nationalist Members in support of their demand for Home Rule—the impossibility of this House, owing to the condition of public business and the cares of the Empire, being able to deal with admitted Irish grievances. We all admit that there is in this House no more earnest, more thoroughgoing, or more consistent Home-Ruler than the Chief Secretary; he has always been that, and if it were possible for him to be a stronger Home-Ruler his experience in his present office would have made him one.
I rose more particularly to say that I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say, not very definitely, I admit, but at all events that he had given hope to the people who live in the neighbourhood of the Barrow that the result of the two deputations which he was good enough to receive was not wholly futile. In the course of his speech the right hon. Gentleman said that no public money had been spent in the Fen country in England. But there was no demand for public money
1748
there, because the landlords in the Fen country recognise to some extent their responsibility as owners and what is expected from them. But in the whole of the region of the Barrow, the Chief Secretary is of course thoroughly well aware that none of the landlords ever expend £1 for the purpose of improving its condition. If there was any part of Ireland of which the very look of the place, especially during the recent flood (which was one of the most serious for many years), would condemn Irish landlords and prove that they had neglected their duty as owners of land, it is the neglected country from Carlow to Mountmellick. The Chief Secretary spoke about three millions of money having been advanced for the purpose of arterial drainage, of which £2,000,000 had had to be remitted, so that interest was being paid on only £1,000,000. Might I remind him of the fact that not a single penny of public money has ever been expended on the drainage of the River Barrow. The right hon. Gentleman admits that the Barrow is an exceptional case, and that it is far and away the worse case in Ireland, but he appeared to be doubtful as to what the effect of the expenditure of £50,000 would be. I was glad to hear him say that he was sympathetically considering representations that have been made to him, and that if he could satisfy his mind or if his experts could satisfy him that this expenditure of £50,000 would be of permanent value he thinks the claim is extremely strong, and that the £50,000 ought to be advanced to be expended by the county councils. If the Chief Secretary will during his leisure, perhaps after the House rises, come down and go up the river from Athy to Mountmellick, he will see for himself, without having any report from experts, that this £50,000 would be of permanent value. He shakes his head.
Mr. BIRRELL: I should not be able to judge.
Mr. KILBRIDE: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to make the House believe that he is not a man of common sense. If he went up the river he could see for himself, without any expert knowledge being necessary, that the artificial obstructions in the river interfere with the natural flow, and prevent the river from doing its natural work in the scouring of the bed. That induces silting, which is the cause of the creation of those islands in the river. It requires no expert knowledge whatever; it only requires a

1749
man of ordinary eyesight and some common-sense—both of which the Chief Secretary possesses—to see for himself that the expenditure of £50,000 would be of permanent value. It is the artificial obstructions in the portion of the river in my Constituency that are the whole cause of a great deal of the flooding. I certainly trust that the Chief Secretary will lose no time in communicating with the county councils of Queen's County and Kildare, who jointly are prepared, under proper supervision and competent engineering advice and experts, to have this work carried out. The Chief Secretary may have been told that it was a question of the removal of fallen trees or something of that kind. It is very much more. Every tree that falls creates an obstruction; but if all the artificial obstructions were removed the river would be put in a condition to do its own natural work. The current would be increased, and the river would have its natural flow. The Chief Secretary can understand what the effect of an artificial weir is in a river where for miles the fall is only six inches to a foot per mile. The inhabitants of the towns of Athy, Monasterevan, Portarlington, and Mountmellick, will anxiously read the statement made to-night by the Chief Secretary. The Chief Secretary has seen from the medical reports that the health of the inhabitants has been seriously affected for a very long time. He would see that not alone is consumption and tuberculosis a fearful scourge in that part of the country, but he would also see that differing from other parts of Ireland malarial and low fevers are prevalent along the whole of the country that is flooded by the River Barrow. In the interests of the general health of the people, even apart from the destruction of property and the destruction of crops, for those four or five towns no money could be possibly better expended. Surely one of the first duties of any Government is to safeguard the lives of the inhabitants of the country which they govern. I, therefore, again press on the Chief Secretary the necessity of losing no time in getting into communication with the chairmen and secretaries and other representative men of the two county councils of Kildare and Queen's County, who are prepared to co-operate in this matter, and to see that the money is spent for the relief and permanent good of the district.
Mr. W. DELANY: I think there was one gleam of satisfaction from the Chief
1750
Secretary's speech, and that was his statement that there will be no more Royal Commissions on this matter. The case that has been made out to-day is an un-answerable case, and the only answer to it is the old one—that there is no money to be got out of the British Treasury for purposes of this kind in Ireland. It was my duty to go on deputations to several Chief Secretaries. I went before Lord Morley in Dublin Castle, I went before Mr. Bryce, and I had the pleasure of going before the present Chief Secretary twice. The one answer that we met was that there was no money. Where are our taxes going? The hon. Member for the Scotland Division reminded the house—our taxation is unjust and rising every day, and that at this minute it is almost ten millions of money for Imperial taxation. "Dreadnoughts" are being built with our taxes, and it was remarked in this House not long ago, they may be scrapped in a few years when aerial navigation has developed. Those huge monsters may therefore be scrapped. With regard to this £50,000 which we are demanding. I think the Chief Secretary must not have read this extract from the report of the Commission as to the question whether this money would be thrown away. That is the Board of Works difficulty with regard to sanctioning this loan, or advising the Treasury that this money might be wholly or partly thrown away. The hon. Member quoted the opinion of Sir Alexander Binnie that money might advantageously be expended on the River Barrow in small sums.
When we went before the Chief Secretary in Dublin on previous occasions he asked us to give something tangible, some expert evidence that he could present to the Treasury when making this demand upon them. We accordingly sent out the two county surveyors of Kildare and Queen's County—two very eminent engineers, men of long experience and long standing. They made a Report which exactly supports the opinion I have read, which the Chief Secretary, I think, has been given, and detailing how this money was to be spent upon the river, and how the work would be permanent work in any future scheme which might be brought forward. The Chief Secretary told us that the Board of Works did not think much about it. I daresay they did not. It was not one of their own engineers, and they did not get the opportunity, as some hon. Member said, of spending red tape on this matter. With

1751
regard to the general scheme of arterial drainage for Ireland, there is no doubt it would have not only economically, but climatically, a wonderful effect on the country. If there is one thing more remarkable than another it is the fact that for the past 30 years the climate has become more moist and more disappointing, and the temperature has considerably fallen, particularly in the summer time. That is all to be attributed to the defective state of arterial drainage, and in the second place to the destruction of the forests. The hills have been denuded of their natural forests, and the consequence is the floods rush down, the rivers are neglected, and cannot carry them away. The Chief Secretary spoke of the amount of money that was spent in Ireland—something about £3,000,000—since the Act of 1842 was passed. He said the greater portion of that was unremunerative. The principal reason of that is that the money was spent under drainage boards, and those boards could not deal with the great principal outlets of the river. It is a national question, and they have not the money to do it. There is no use in dealing with the arteries unless the great outlets are relieved.
The Chief Secretary promised to consider the question of altering the law as, I understand, with regard to these drainage boards, in consequence of the altered situation brought about by the Land Purchase Acts, and of forming a Drainage Department. We wish to have in any new Department that is formed representation, we wish to have the general council of the county councils represented, and to have nothing whatever to do with the Board of Works. I support everything stated by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool with regard to their incompetence. I had an instance in my own division, where they carried out some drainage works on the Nore, and they put up a sluice, but on the wrong side, so that instead of allowing the water to go they sent it back. There is another instance of the Board of Works' incompetence. Everyone was startled with the jewel robbery in Dublin Castle. 'The Board of Works built a strong room for the safe, and when they had it built they could not get the safe in. That was one of the reasons why the robbery was carried out so easily. The demand was put forward by the hon. Member for Westmeath that there should be a representative body to carry out this
1752
system of drainage in the country. Above all things the Board of Works should have nothing to do with it. It is the duty of the Government to see that the lives and property of the people are protected, and it is really a mockery to attempt to remedy diseases such as tuberculosis and others which are propagated is the country by these hotbeds of infection. I myself have seen instances in which people have had to return to a cottage which had been saturated with water in the floods, and where they were expected with a very meagre supply of fuel, to bring up their family. I say it is impossible that the people can exist under such circumstances, and, having regard to the case made out, the Chief Secretary, I hope, will be successful in his demand on the Treasury for at least a small sum of £50,000.
Mr. RICHARD HAZLETON: I had in tended drawing the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the deplorable condition of things that very frequently exists in the county of Galway in connection with flooding from the river Clare. But after the statement he has made on behalf of the Government I am afraid there is not the slightest use in my doing so. I can only say, therefore, that if ever the right hon. Gentleman succeeds in breaking into the Treasury and securing a sum of money to deal with this question of arterial drainage in Ireland, I shall certainly press upon his attention the claim3 of the people of the county of Galway in respect of the flooding of the river Clare. In common with the Members who sit on this Bench, I listened with great disappointment to the speech we have heard to-night from the right hon. Gentleman. I suppose he is tired of hearing complaints from these Benches about statements he has from time to time to make with regard to Ireland, especially where financial questions arise. The right hon. Gentleman perfectly well understands that our complaints are in no way personal to himself. He does his best. We have always given him credit for doing his best, and we hope shall always do so in future, but that cannot prevent or preclude us from making very serious complaints with regard to the attitude of the Chief Secretary, or save the Government from our criticism. I think in this case the helpless position in which the right hon. Gentle man has acknowledged himself to be this evening affords very grave and serious grounds indeed for complaint against the Government. The speech of the right hon.

1753
Gentleman was in very sharp and strange contrast with the speech delivered in this House only yesterday by the Prime Minister. In introducing the Bill dealing with Welsh Disestablishment the Prime Minister adduced the argument that every Member returned to the present Parliament from Wales was in favour of disestablishment; and then he turned to these Benches and to the Tory Benches above the Gangway, and he said: "Does any single Member of this House believe for a moment that if the Irish Members, the Tory Members for Ulster and the Members for the Nationalist constituencies were united upon any single question, the House of Commons would be able to resist for 24 hours their demand?"
Lord BALCARRES: On a purely Irish subject.
Mr. HAZLETON: This is a purely Irish subject, and the interruption of the Noble Lord is scarcely relevant, because our contention is that we contribute in Imperial taxation close upon ten millions of money a year, and all we ask is that some of that money ought to be devoted to Irish purposes such as that which we have brought before the attention of the House to-day. The remarks of the Prime Minister to my mind ought to have been modified to this extent, that it appears his remarks about Irish demands being granted where they are united, only apply when it costs nothing. That is the moral of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman which we have heard tonight. It is one with which we on our part cannot be satisfied. The Chief Secretary in the course of his observations boasted of the fact that three millions of money have been spent on arterial drainage in Ireland. He went back over a long period, but I think he will find if he goes closely into the matter that the fact of three millions of money having been spent in Ireland upon arterial drainage is, if anything, a grave condemnation of the Board of Works, and the Government of Ireland, for at the time of the famine in the 'forties money was spent on arterial drainage in Ireland, but as soon as the pressure of the famine was over all useful works that had been started were abandoned, and the result was that you got no satisfactory result at all from the amount of money that had been expended. My hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division dealt with the question as to why the Board of Works in Ireland is so unpopular. The
1754
reason is briefly this, that it is completely and absolutely out of touch with popular feeling, that it is antiquated and incompetent in its methods, and bigoted and reactionary in its constitution. The Chief Secretary said our whole case might be summed up in this, that we want cash, and he has none. It is not necessary for me to ask: Is the British Treasury bankrupt? I think we have reason to complain that throughout this long Debate there has not been on the Treasury Bench except for one or two moments, a representative of the Treasury who is concerned or who ought to be concerned in this important matter. Where are the representatives of the Treasury? There was a dispute upon a question of fact between my hon. Friend the Member for Kildare and the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture, and I submit that a representative of the Treasury ought to have been here to help to clear up the facts regarding the matter in question. I think we at least have a right to expect that a financial representative of this bankrupt Empire—for that really is what it means so Tar as Ireland is concerned when we ask for money nowadays—should be here to give us some explanation of why the legitimate demands of our country cannot be met. When we are told that there is no money forthcoming, and that the Chief Secretary is not able to secure another penny for this purpose out of the British Treasury, our answer to that statement and to that attitude is that you have made yourselves responsible for the government of Ireland, and that it is your duty to see that your responsibilities are carried out. If you cannot govern Ireland well under the present system—and the Chief Secretary will not for one moment maintain that you can—I say that the least you ought to do is to keep the country literally, if not financially, above water. The Chief Secretary has not shown that he can hold out to us any hope, any considerable hope, in this matter. In view of that fact, I think this House will realise, and I hope this country will realise, that the sooner the responsibility for the government of Ireland and for the redressing of the grievances under which Ireland suffers at the present time, especially in this matter of arterial drainage, is transferred to 'the shoulders of the people of Ireland the better it will be for all concerned.
Mr. JOSEPH NOLAN: Whatever else may be said about the Debate this even-

1755
ing, it cannot be said that it is open to the reproach made by the mathematician against Milton's "Paradise Lost" that it proves nothing. It proves several things beyond the possibility of doubt. The first of these is that for more than 100 years the Imperial Government has shamefully neglected its duty to Ireland in connection with this matter of arterial drainage. Secondly, that the authority which the Imperial Government has set up in Ireland to represent it in these matters is shamefully incompetent, and has bungled everything that it has attempted, not only in connection with arterial drainage but everything else that was submitted to its care. Thirdly, it has been proved beyond the possibility of doubt that there is a necessity for a great and comprehensive scheme for preventing the great evil to which Ireland is subjected at the present time of having tens of thousands of acres of its best land covered with water for months at a time. Worst of all, it has been proved that there is no hope of any remedy being applied to this colossal evil, which not only destroys the property of the people of Ireland, but which endangers their health and their lives to an alarming extent; which carries off by consumption thousands of the population from year to year, and which sends thousands of the young people of Ireland to foreign countries with the seeds of consumption in their system. It is a matter of surprise to the people belonging to other nationalities in the United States of America and elsewhere that young and apparently strong and vigorous people coming from Ireland after a short time fall victims to the fell disease of consumption. It has been shown here to-night, it has been proved by medical testimony, that this disease of consumption, which so injuriously affects the population of Ireland, is largely owing to the flooding of the country and the neglect of arterial drainage. Again, I have heard it stated in this House in years gone by about this very Bann district which has been referred to, that in addition to consumption the people there suffer terribly from rheumatism, so that at an advanced age you meet with men and women who are twisted almost out of resemblance to human beings by rheumatism. I consider it is a terrible thing, in view of this state of affairs, to find that the representative 6f the Imperial Government in Ireland who is responsible
1756
can hold out no hope. I do not for a moment attribute it to any want of sympathy on his part, or any want of conviction on his part that a remedy ought to be applied. But he is helpless in the present state of affairs. I am sure that he, as well as the Members from Ireland, is desire us that as early as possible one great remedy should be that of giving the charge of matters of this kind to the people of Ireland at home.
I should like to say one word with regard to the means by which the flooding of lands in Ireland might be prevented. It is true that the removal of obstacles in the rivers may do a great deal, but I hold, with one of my hon. Friends who spoke this evening in the Debate, that the evil ought to be attacked at its root. It is not, as has been pointed out before, the waters that fall upon the plains in Ireland that cause the damage. It is the water that falls upon the mountains and the hillsides, and which rushes down—as does the water from the roof of a house—into the plains that causes these inundations. Before we can have a satisfactory state of affairs in connection with this matter in Ireland we must have the mountains and the hills planted. It is recommended by engineers who have gone thoroughly into this question in the past that there is another thing which might be done in connection with the inundations in the plains. That is, in the hilly countries barrages might be constructed to dam up the water during the heavy rains. It has: been pointed out that land in the mountain districts, which would be required for reservoirs to intercept the water, and keep it from rushing down into the plains, is worth about 6d. per acre, whereas the land that is destroyed in the plains is worth £6. Until the matter is dealt with in a comprehensive way, including both the planting of the hills and the mountains and the construction of those barrages, the floods will not be satisfactorily dealt with.
Mr. PATRICK WHITE: Hon. Members may note owing to the conditions of Irish government, that while the right hon. Gentleman sympathises with the people in their affliction, we find, on the other hand, he is responsible for another Department of State in Ireland which at the present time is aggravating the very evil in connection with which he is so sympathetic, and which he dealt with in such sympathetic language to the House this evening. It is perhaps due to the state of Irish government, and it epitomises the whole

1757
state of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman represents many Departments, and while he deplores and sympathises with the state of the people as the representative of one particular Department, on the other hand, he is the head of another Department which is primarily responsible for keeping up the very evils he deplores. That is due entirely to the mistakes which he, as well as many of his predecessors, have fallen into. They have allowed themselves to be guided by the permanent officials, and they have neglected and ignored the advice given to them by Irish Members in the past. That is the present position; it is an extraordinary state of things. The land of Ireland is passing from the landlords to the tenants. The landlords of Ireland were hitherto responsible for arterial drainage. Since they received their purchase money they cease to have any further responsibility, and the State becomes the landlord of the annuitants. But the State is not responsible for arterial drainage and the State takes no trouble to inquire into the condition of arterial drainage in any particular county or upon any particular property before they advance the purchase money to the landlords. We on these benches have again and again Appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to insist upon inspection before sanctioning sales between landlord and tenants and before advancing the money to the landlords. These appeals have been rejected, and the right hon. Gentleman proposes to perpetuate that in his Land Bill, and instead of taking the view of the representatives of the people he prefers to take the views of the permanent officials of the Government.
I should like just to give one specific instance of what I said. I know an estate which was to be sold to the tenants at prices within the zones. In the ordinary course the money would have been advanced to the purchase of that estate without inspection, but a few of the tenants, of whom I was one, held out, and but for that fact the money would have been advanced to the landlord, who would be rid of all responsibility. He would be no longer responsible after he had received his cash for arterial drainage, and the responsibility would have lain with the multitude of small tenants on the estate. How are they to be brought together, and how could they be expected to attend to the business of arterial drainage? If the drainage was not kept in proper con-
1758
dition, the land would have been swamped and in that way the right hon. Gentleman and his Government would have been responsible for the evil of which we complain, and would have enlarged and magnified the amount of land under the water. The tenants on this estate applied to the Estates Commissioners to order an inspection. The Estates Commissioners promised to comply, and an inspector was sent down, but he came without giving: any notice, and was not seen by the tenants. They again appealed to the Estates Commissioners not to advance the money until the arterial drainage of property was properly provided for, either by deducting from the landlord purchase money, a sufficient sum, or by combining the tenantry together in some way, so that trustees might be appointed for the proper maintenance of the drainage of the district. Another inspector was sent down. He came by appointment and named two days on which he would attend, but on neither day did he meet the tenants. We were told subsequently that he came in his motor-car to the top of the hill, looked down on the land, and that was all that was heard of him since. I wish to bring home to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman that if arterial drainage is indispensable and necessary, it is essential that the rivers of Ireland should be maintained in a proper condition, and if the right hon. Gentleman is wise he will accept the advice of the Irish Members, and he will insist that land is inspected at all events as to the matter of arterial drainage before the purchase-money is advanced to landlords. If the money is advanced, and the drainage facilities are neglected, and if in four, five, or ten years the land becomes flooded, and small-holders cannot be brought together to promote a proper scheme, then it is the Government which has advanced money to the landlord without taking proper precautions in this important matter that will be responsible. The right hon. Gentleman proposed at some future date to introduce legislation to deal with this subject, but that is the bane of Irish government. The evil is always allowed to do its work before any attempt is made to remedy it. The right hon. Gentleman may not be in the position of Chief Secretary five or six years hence, and his successor may not be of the same mind as he. Therefore, we say inspect the land before you advance the money, and if you find that an annual outlay is required for arterial drainage on an

1759
estate, retain sufficient money to carry out the enterprise properly, and if you do not do that, do not blame the Irish people if they should fail to pay their annuities.
Mr. M. J. FLAVIN: I want to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the very interesting evidence given by the chief inspector of the Congested Districts Board at one of the sittings of the recent Royal Commission on Congestion. The chief inspector, Mr. Doran, is a gentleman of whom every impartial man has formed the highest opinion. The Royal Commission on Congestion inquired not only into the question of congestion, but also took evidence in connection with arterial drainage. At the sitting of the Commission in Listowel, county Kerry, Mr. Doran gave very important evidence in connection with the arterial drainage of Cashen Mouth. In asking the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to deal with that I will call his attention to Vol. 3, page 10, preface to Mr. Doran's evidence, which practically covers the whole ground that I would have otherwise to traverse. He will see from that that there is an area of 11,000 acres of land wholly or partially submerged for the greater portion of the year. I am afraid in dealing with this particular phase I differ somewhat from most of my colleagues in the remedy which I would suggest. I join with them in their condemnation of the Board of Works and the Drainage Board. In the last 25 years it was estimated that the expenditure on the Cashen would not have been more than £5,000, but the actual expenditure was £10,000, and the condition of the river mouth is no better than it was before the work was
commenced. Indeed, my deliberate opinion is that the condition is worse. The claim we make is not that the river ought to be drained or that obstructions ought to be removed. Our claim is one with which I am glad to see Mr. Doran from his evidence is in entire agreement. That claim is that the volume of tidal water coming in should be kept out, so as to decrease the amount of fresh water in the upper reaches of the river. Some of my hon. Friends make the claim that the beds or sinks of rivers should be lowered. That is all very well, and I have no doubt will have an excellent effect in some upper reaches, but my experience of the River Feale is that the flooding is caused by the tidal waters coming up and stopping or forcing back the fresh water of the river. The report to which I have alluded estimates that 11,000 acres of wholly or partly submerged land can easily be reclaimed at the expenditure of about £10,000. His scheme is not the dredging of the river, but the building of a large tidal wall by which the tide can be kept back and prevented from meeting the fresh water running down the river. This can be done at a small annual expense, and the great danger to both life and health will be obviated. The waste land which will be reclaimed can be made a valuable asset, and might be divided amongst the poor people. I trust the right hon. Gentleman in considering the giving of a grant will not lose sight of the necessity of dealing with these smaller schemes which are of vital importance in themselves.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes, 97; Noes, 80.

Division No. 70.]

AYES.

[9.20 p.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Myer, Horatio

Barker, Sir John

Haworth, Arthur A.

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Beauchamp, E.

Helme, Norval Watson

Nicholls, George

Bellairs, Carlyon

Hills, J. W.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Hobart, Sir Robert

Nuttall, Harry

Brian, John

Horniman, Emslie John

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Burt, Rt Hen. Thomas

Idris, T. H. W.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Chance, Frederick William

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Pirie, Duncan V.

Channing, Sir Francis Aliston

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Radford, G. H.

Clough, William

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

Rees, J. D.

Crossley, William J.

Lewis, John Herbert

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Duckworth, Sir James

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Everett, R. Lacey

M'Callum, John M.

Rose, Charles Day

Fenwick, Charles

Maddison, Frederick

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Findlay, Alexander

Mallet, Charles E.

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Massie, J.

Sears, J. E.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Middlebrook, William

Seaverns, J. H.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Tomkinson, James

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

Simon, John Allsebrook

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Verney, F. W.

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

Spicer, Sir Albert

Vivian, Henry

Winfrey, R.

Steadman, W. C.

Walters, John Tudor

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Watt, Henry A.

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

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

NOES.

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

Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

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

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Ambrose, Robert

Hazleton, Richard

O'Malley, William

Balcarres, Lord

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Parker, James (Halifax)

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

Hodge, John

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Barry. E. (Cork, S.)

Hodge, Sir Robert Hermon

Philips, John (Longford, S.)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hogan, Michael

Power, Patrick Joseph

Boland, John

Hudson, Walter

Reddy, M.

Bryce, J. Annan

Jowett, F. W.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Joyce, Michael

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Cave, George

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Clynes, J. R.

Kilbride, Denis

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

Seddon, J.

Curran, Peter Francis

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Shackleton, David James

Delany. William

M'Kean, John

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Meagher, Michael

Snowden, P.

Doughty, Sir George

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Stanier, Beville

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

Summerbell, T.

Fell, Arthur

Mooney, J. J.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Ftrench, Peter

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nolan, Joseph

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Forster, Henry William

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Wilkie, Alexander

Gill, A. H.

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Ginnell, L.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Glover, Thomas

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Mr. Haviland Burke.

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmunds)

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

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

O'Dowd, John

Halpin, J.

Question again proposed: "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

CONTINUATION SCHOOLS.
Mr. WILLIAM JONES: I wish to call attention to the subject of Continuation Schools, and I will not occupy the attention of the House for more than a very few minutes. It is a question that will eventually lead to many debates in this House. We have got in this country an exceedingly good system of education dealing with elementary schools, secondary education, and also higher education. But this system leaves a most important gap, and the gap is between children of 13 and 14 years of age and those between 17 and 18 years. Those are periods the most critical in the child-life of the country. In the course of every year more than half a million of children leave the public elementary schools at 13 and 14 years of age, and no more than one out of three receives further systematic care in the matter of elementary or technical education or any education at all. These are the most critical years of a child's life. These are the years when the child should get the fullest
1762
educational care that could possibly be given it. At those ages there is neglect on the part of parents, the education authorities, and employers of labour. That applies both to girls and boys. Something is done, I admit, voluntarily. It is not so in other countries. Take, for instance, Germany. Germany has learnt most successfully to grapple with the system, not merely by getting employers of labour, both men and women, to deal with boys and girls who are going into domestic service or industrial pursuits, but by legislation. There are 21 States in Germany which have a compulsory system of dealing with secondary schools, and they have roped in employers and the parents of children. Switzerland comes next, and after Switzerland comes Denmark, which is making such great advances in agriculture and the co-operative movement. Farming pays in Denmark. Nearly 40 per cent. of those engaged in farming go through the schools up to the age of 15 to 20 years. It is important to get boys and girls to follow some regular course of training immediately after they leave school. In France, and again in the United States, great advance has been made, mainly on free lines.

1763
These countries are making the problem of continuation schools one of the most important in the history of their school life. Something has already been done in this country by Government Departments, or at least by subordinate branches of the service. I know of several postmasters in large towns like Brighton and Portsmouth who, in regard to the messenger boys, come to some arrangement with the boys and their parents and the education authorities of these towns whereby these boys can be let out, without shortening the hours of labour, to get a better training. We want to increase the effort by the State to encourage these authorities and associations, according to their different callings, to give courses of instruction which will be practically useful to these young people. If hon. Members will only read the Report, particularly the minority Report, dealing with the Poor Law they will find some most alarming facts with regard to the unemployed and the unemployable drawn from the class to which I referred. The reports of distress committees of towns like Birkenhead refer to the misuse of boy labour and how these boys without training graduate into the unemployable. From Glasgow comes the report that nearly 20 per cent. of the unemployed were labourers under 25 years of age, and half were under 35. I was glad to see that Scotland got a Bill last year to deal with these continuation schools, so that children in Scotland as they grow up are likely to be better provided for. The registers of the distress committees all over the country show the startling fact that something like 15 per cent. of the men in distress are under 21 years of age, and nearly one-third of the whole are under 30. The report from Birkenhead shows that hundreds and thousands of boys on leaving school become messengers and clerks in merchants' offices. They go on without having learnt any craft or skilled work. Such places are filled up again by recruits from the elementary schools, and they reach manhood without acquiring a trade, and they go to swell the ranks of the unskilled labourers. In periods of depression, when thrown out of employment, such lads quickly become numbered among the unemployable. These are facts that ought to be considered. I do not want to deal with the whole question. I am not now urging legislation; but I want the House to look at this question from every point of view. We want to do something
1764
to keep our boys and girls from becoming corner boys and fast girls in the streets. I ask the right hon. Gentleman representing the Board of Education to recommend the education authorities to bring employers of labour and parents and boys together. Some employers of labour are taking commendable steps now. Take, for instance, my right hon. Friend the Member for the Northwich Division of Cheshire. He long ago refused to employ a single apprentice in his chemical works without first of all coming to an agreement with the parents that at different periods of the week the apprentice should attend a technical school. Evening schools are all very well. They do a great deal of good in their way, but we cannot expect boys to go to school in the evening after they have done a day's work. They should attend school in a mental state fit to receive mental pabulum. What you have to do is to get the educational authorities to agree with the employers of labour, and with parents just in the same way as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northwich is proceeding, and as is being done in regard to some post offices in the country, and in scores of places in Germany and America, where I have seen employers and parents coming to agreements, and being encouraged so to do. I just want my right hon. Friend who represents the Board of Education to be alive to this question, because it is one of the most burning questions of the age.

WELSH MINISTER.
Mr. REES: The subject to which I wish to call attention is that a Minister for Wales should be appointed to take charge of Welsh business in the House of Commons. Welsh business is, I think, really entitled to that special distinction, and Wales must be regarded from an historical and literary and racial point of view, though administratively part of England, as otherwise quite distinct. I am quite sure that hon. Members who live in the border counties must feel more than any others what a great difference there is between Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom. I think I can illustrate this in a moment by an occurrence which is believed to have taken place in Wales. It was reported not long since that a judge was on assizes in Wales and an offender was placed before him. The judge summed up strongly against him and the jury promptly acquit-

1765
ted him. Counsel for the defence made an exceedingly short speech, and the judge was much struck with the fact that the few words made such an impression on the jury that he asked to have the Welsh speech translated to him, and it worked out in the following way. The counsel said: "Gentlemen of the jury, you are Welshmen, I am a Welshman, and the accused is a Welshman. The judge is an Englishman. Need I say more?" I do not believe in the truth of that story, but that it should be current shows how strong is the feeling that the Welsh and English are practically still distinct and different people. As I said the other day, I have lived among the Hindus and the Welsh, and I think the Welsh are as full of caste and racial feeling as the Hindus. On every score, I think, Wales is entitled to be regarded in Parliament as a separate entity. If time allowed I would endeavour to show the House how different feelings and customs in Wales hold strongly their own, and how greatly pleased the Principality would be if there was in this House something like separate Ministerial representation. I think you will find that Welshmen desire that a Welsh Minister should be appointed. I believe it is the case that such a change as I am advocating could not well be made without the full concurrence of the Opposition. I believe they would concur, because they must have seen from the Debate which took place yesterday that Wales was not represented among them, and it must have struck them that Wales required some special representation, when they had to go over the border to Shropshire to get anyone to present the case against Welsh Disestablishment. I am sure that the sense of justice which equally prevails on both sides of the House will lead them to agree with me that a special Minister should be appointed. Had I thought that this question would have been reached I should have endeavoured, with the powerful aid of my hon. Friend the Member for South Glamorgan, the respected Leader of the Welsh party, to have organised something more in the nature of a demonstration, something like that which hon. Members for Ireland so successfully organised in regard to arterial drainage to-day. But I could hardly hope that the subject would come on, and it did not become me to endeavour to obtain a large attendance of my hon. Friends or to organise a demonstration worthy of the theme which I present to the House.
1766
Nevertheless, I am so very fortunate as to be able to make these remarks in the presence of the Leader of the Welsh party, and more than one of his most eloquent and able followers, and in the hope that he will say a word or two in aid of a cause which requires a more powerful voice than mine to commend it to the House, I will not venture to intrude longer upon the House, but will sit down in order that he may take up the theme and bring it—though not in the immediate present—to a successful conclusion.
Colonel LOCKWOOD: I am anxious to say a few words in support of my hon. Friend the Member for the Arfon Division as to the importance of recognising the usefulness and, indeed, the absolute necessity of the continuation schools. I have no doubt that this is rather a case of flogging a dead horse, but we were reminded by the hon. Member of what is the attitude of foreign countries towards continuation schools. But I think this question of continuation schools raises rather a larger question than that referred to by my hon. Friend opposite, although on the subject of education he is invariably sound, or at least generally so—I wish I could find him as sound on other questions—but the House always listens to him when he speaks on education, and I cannot help thinking that when he quoted the continuation schools of Germany and Denmark as an example of what a useful purpose might be served by these schools, he left out of consideration one important point, which is full of importance to us in England at the present day. Is our system of primary education as sound as the system in Germany and Denmark'! Are the children who leave these primary schools as fit to undergo and receive instruction in continuation schools as they are in those two countries quoted by him. Undoubtedly the continuation schools in Germany and Denmark have afforded a striking example of what can be done about the age of adolesence, especially when, as is the case, the youth of those countries have been so well grounded in the primary schools. The great object of the primary schools should be to thoroughly ground the child, but do we do that in our Board schools? I have been allowed to be the chairman of a thoroughly typical rural Board school ever since the Act came into force, and I have seen the usefulness of those institutions, but it seems to me that a Government never comes into power

1767
without adding to the curriculum of these unfortunate children who are in those schools. But do they leave the primary school now in any better condition for fighting the world than they did 20 or 30 years ago? My own impression is that within three or four years of their leaving that school they are practically unable, I will not say to read or write, but certainly unable to read or spell correctly. You go about a Board school, what do you find? A child can read thirty or forty words of English, but you cannot understand a single word the boy says, because he is not taught pronunciation. There are branches of education taught, too, which are absolutely useless to the rural population, and there is a doubt in my mind whether the grounding we have at present would, in the continuation school, be of such great use as it ought to be. There has, it is true, been an improvement; girls are taught domestic economy and cooking, and the whole school is taught gardening and other useful employments of that sort, all of which are of great importance, and I think, perhaps, on the strength of that my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon is right in saying it is a pity to allow that good stuff to be thrown overboard for the want of continuation schools. At the same time, I am a little shy of asking for fresh burdens to be placed upon us in the way of an educational rate. I was one of those who voted in favour of medical inspection, although the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, with the violent antipathy that he has to change of any sort, violently opposed it, because he saw it would impose a burden upon the rates. Already my people are complaining that they are being further rated for carrying out a good object, which they were led to understand would not inflict any extra expense upon them. I only bring that in as a reason that makes me shy of asking for an additional educational privilege if it is to burden the unhappy county which adopts it. But, in a general way, I am sure I am in entire sympathy with my hon. Friend opposite. The figures of the census of unemployment he quoted are incontrovertible, and it is perfectly well known that it is at the age of leaving the primary school that the hooligan begins and is launched upon society as a curse to his country and a curse to himself. If it could be proved to the employer and to the classes on whom it is wished to confer this benefit that it was to the child's
1768
benefit that education only really begun should be continued, I believe we might look forward to a diminution of the unemployed, and perhaps to the creation of a class which might think that Imperial instincts were worth cultivating. The continuation school question is a very grave one at the present time. Agricultural districts now are anxious to provide small holdings in order that a man may either make his fortune or obtain a living—the terms are synonomous with small holders. Continuation schools in that way will afford the very greatest assistance. They will also be a means of keeping in a boy's head what he has already learnt, and I believe, with certain restrictions, will prove of the very greatest advantage to the country.
Mr. H. C. GOOCH: I am very glad this subject has been raised, because I think on the whole it is about the most important subject that the education authorities have to consider at present. Most children leave school at the age of 13 or 14 to earn a few shillings, and for some reason or other they seem to think it beneath their dignity to attend any sort of school again. In a few years they forget practically everything they have learnt, and they have to go back to an evening continuation school to pick up their knowledge again. Even then when they can be got back into the school their attendance is most discouraging, and it is almost impossible to do any good work at all. At present a great deal of the money and the time spent upon elementary education is absolutely and completely wasted unless the children can keep up their learning from the time they leave school. I do not think, of course, it would be wise at present to propose anything like compulsory classes for these children, though I hope no long time will elapse before a Government of one sort or another has the courage of its convictions, and ordains that these children shall go to compulsory evening classes at least up to the age of 16 or 17. If the Government feel disposed to do anything they might give power to make bye-laws to local education authorities. A good deal was done under the Scotch Education Act of last year, and I think that is an example which might be followed very admirably on the present occasion. I hope also, if the Government are going to give anything of that sort, they will not forget to give us some money at the same time to help us in the work, because otherwise I am afraid the permis-

1769
sive power would not be used and the work which ought to be done by that permissive power will not be done merely for the want of funds.
Mr. T. SUMMERBELL: I have listened to the discussion which has taken place with regard to the education of the working man's children between school life and manhood and womanhood with the greatest possible interest, and on behalf of my colleagues I think I can safely say that we have a great deal of sympathy in regard to what has been urged by the hon. Member opposite. Speaking as one who left school at 12, I have always looked upon the age between leaving school and manhood as the missing link in education, and as one of the most important problems that this country had to face, and as one who was taught in a Church school, and whose children are to-day attending a Board school, I say most emphatically that I do not agree with the remarks which have been made in regard to the education of children to-day compared with 10 or 20 years ago. The superiority of the education given to-day in the Board schools is hardly measurable with that which was given when I left school. The best asset a nation can have is to have a well-educated population, and if boys and girls after leaving school could be got hold of and kept interested in some walk of education many a boy and girl would be ultimately saved from ruin.
I desire to say a few words in regard to the Inland Revenue Pension officers, who I think have not been at all fairly treated.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must raise that question when the Vote comes on for these particular individuals. It is only general topics that can be discussed at the present time.
Mr. SUMMERBELL: I had grave doubts as to whether it would be in the Estimates at all, and I thought to-night would be the opportunity for a general discussion in regard to a matter of this kind. There is another little matter I should like to say a word or two on, and that is in regard to the method of promotion in the Custom House. I do not think it is at all a fair one, and opportunity is not given to get the best men for this particular service. The method of selection is that the representative of any seaport, no matter how large or small, has the opportunity of selecting men and sending them up for examination. A short time ago something like five juniors were selected for this particular purpose over the heads of considerably
1770
over 300 seniors. To infer, as one must, that the juniors were superior to the seniors at all events reflects discredit on the men who are passed over. I know a case where one was selected for promotion. He was rejected because it was said he was not a man of sufficient zeal and ability to be promoted. That man shortly went under another official, who put him forward, and he passed an examination which qualified for a higher position. To have a method of test of that kind is unfair to the whole of the men in the service, and I believe it prevails in other Departments of the public service. I would like to appeal for an opportunity being given to all men to sit for examination, and so qualify for promotion. I believe if all men had an opportunity to sit for examination it would be better for the Department and the country as a whole. I would appeal to the hon. Gentleman to go into this small matter and give the opportunity for examination which I suggest.
Sir ALFRED THOMAS: I wish to say that I admire my hon. Friend's courage in bringing forward the suggestion he has made in regard to the appointment of a Minister for Wales, for I think the Government have their hands pretty full in regard to Welsh questions which are to be brought before the House. Many years ago I brought forward a Bill on this question, and of late years we have found that the county councils in Wales have passed votes in favour of the appointment of a Minister for Wales. In the present Session the Government have recognised Wales to a very considerable extent, and I will say no more in regard to the question except that I hope the time is not far distant when Wales will have a Minister. It is the only distinct portion of the United Kingdom which has no Minister in this House.
Sir GEORGE DOUGHTY: I sympathise with the remarks which have fallen from the hon. Member opposite in regard to secondary education. There is no doubt that the missing link with regard to education is the period of time between 14 and 18 years of age. I am afraid I cannot agree with my hon. Friend behind me in condemning the elementary system of this country. I do not know anything about the schools in the rural district, but having been working in connection with educational work almost all my life, I can say that so far as the elementary system of education in large towns and cities is concerned, it is at the present time

1771
although not a perfect, a splendid system. If we examine the systems obtaining even in Germany we should find our system is equal, if not superior, to them. The one great step forward which this country has to take is in regard to the equipping of its people with proper training for making a living. I think it is apparent from what we have heard recently about the lack of employment that the youth who are now casual labourers are so largely because when they first left school they could earn a few shillings to help their parents, and when they grew up to be men they had no opportunity of learning any specific or particular kind of work to which they could turn their attention. The ideal of the future must be that boys and girls, and especially boys, must be equipped for special work. It is the duty of the State to see that they have that equipment. We shall never get the best out of the youth of the country until we see that they are efficiently educated and able to take their place in some particular walk of life. I would like the Minister of Education to give his attention to this matter. It is all right enough to advise education committees to do certain things, and to give them power to make bye-laws, but I would venture to say that unless you give the local authorities power to spend money that will be of little value in the future. It is the duty of the State to pay for education very largely. The burden which has been placed upon local authorities during the last two years is a serious one. The great necessity is to find more money. Since I have been in the House that seems to be the general plea put forward by everybody. We are asked to find £10,000,000 from the ratepayers. The burden has increased enormously during the last ten years. If the right hon. Gentleman can find the money there is sufficient enthusiasm and love for education in the great education authorities of this country, and they will go a long way to meet the difficulty and the defect of the present educational system.
I want to bring before the House another important subject. I wish to call the attention of the House to the neglect of the Board of Trade, and I suppose the Government, of the defences of the country.
Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise on the Civil Service Estimates. It will be more appropriate to the War Office Vote.
Sir G. DOUGHTY: I find a Vote in the Civil Service Estimates in regard to harbours, and I do not know of any other opportunity I shall have of raising the question on this Vote.
Mr. SPEAKER: That does not relate to the defences of the country. It relates to the maintenance of harbours.
Sir G. DOUGHTY: Perhaps I used the wrong words in referring to the defences of the country. I wish to refer to the Spurn, which is the breakwater that defends the Humber. There has been a great neglect in maintaining sufficiently the Spurn and in seeing that it is not allowed to be washed away by the tide, as it has been during recent years. This is a very important matter, especially to the great interests affected along the banks of the Humber. A few years ago the Board of Trade endeavoured to remove the obligation at present on the Government, and to place it on the Humber Conservancy, but they were not prepared to accept such a responsibility as that. We find that there is only £l,200 to be spent on the Spurn this year.
Mr. SPEAKER: There is a special Vote for the Spurn, and the hon. Member can raise the matter when that Vote is reached.
Sir G. DOUGHTY: Quite right, but I am afraid the Vote never will be reached.
Sir F. BANBURY: I believe, with my hon. Friend below the Gangway, that great disadvantage arises from the present system of education. The present system seems to be to allow people to be trained for nothing at all, because a majority of them, after having learned a little on all sorts of subjects, find that the only use that can be made of those subjects is as clerks in offices. If there is one profession or calling which is overcrowded it is the profession of clerks, and the consequence is that a large number of them are unemployed. If they had been taught a trade or industry, they would have been able to find employment for themselves, and to do good service to the State. I am not quite certain as to the remedy. I am not aware that any remedy was proposed, except that the State should spend more money on technical education.
Mr. WILLIAM JONES: I did not say that.
Sir F. BANBURY: I presume the only remedy that would have been proposed

1773
would be that this new education should be given. If this new education were given and the old one cut down I would have nothing to say against it; but if the proposal is that the old education should be continued and that further money should be expended on teaching trades to children who had already been taught according to the old system, then I strongly object to it, and for two reasons. I believe that in seven cases out of 10 the ordinary school board education is perfectly useless. By the time a child arrives at 20 he or she has forgotten everything he or she ever learned, and if technical education is given on top of that it may be of some value, but it would be of still greater value if given in the first instance, accompanied only by writing and arithmetic, or some simple education of that sort. The result would be, a large sum of money would be saved to the State, while the people of the State would benefit. But what I chiefly rose to call the attention of the House to was the extraordinary increase of the expenditure on the Civil Service. I am extremely sorry that the Financial Secretary is not present, because I believe I am going to call attention to a fact which merits the serious consideration of every Member of the House. Though recognising the great ability of the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Education, I do not know that it is in his Department to consider whether or not the general expenditure of the Civil Service is too large. Even if he is capable, as no doubt he would be capable if it is in his Department, I do not think he could deal with it, because it is a question which is not before the House at the moment, though, unless I am very much mistaken, he at one time occupied the responsible position of Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and therefore perhaps he will claim the dual position as the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury and President of the Board of Education; but if he will refer to the Memorandum by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury he will see that in paragraph 1 he say that the net total Estimates for the Civil Service exclusive of revenue deposits for 1909–10 is £40,070,171; the net total of the original Estimates for 1908–9 was £30,496,947, and the increase is therefore £9,573,224. That is to say, there is an increase of nearly £10,000,000 in one year in the Civil Service Estimate. I am perfecly well aware that one of the answers that will be given to this is that the increase is chiefly owing to old age pensions.
1774
But I would like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman in his capacity as late Financial Secretary to the Treasury that that is not a sufficient answer, because if he will refer to the Official Report of 5th March, 1909, he will see the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutlandshire. The question was: "What were the total sums voted for Civil Services, including Supplementary Votes, in the years 1905–6, 1906–7, 1907–8, and 1908–9 (the latter year including the Supplementary Estimates), showing the increase or decrease, as the case may be, in each successive year?" It should be remembered that 1905–6 was the last year in which the Tory Government was in power. I lay stress upon that, because one of the great charges brought against that Government by practically the whole of the present occupants of the Treasury Bench was that of reckless extravagance. This was the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to my hon. Friend's question:—
"The information asked for by the hon. Member is shown in the following table:—

CIVIL SERVICES.

Year.

Amount Voted, including Supplementary Estimates.

Increase.

1905–6

£28,777,353

—

1906–7

29,831,802

£1,054,449

1907–8

30,988,780

1,156,978

1908–9

38,188,468

2,199,688

That is a total increase, irrespective of old age pensions, of nearly 4½ millions in the three years during which the country has had the misfortune to be under the present Radical Government. According to "Whitaker's Almanac," in 1870–1, the Civil Service Estimates were £9,989,000. It may be said that that is a long time ago, and that all sorts of things for which the present Government is not responsible have happened since then. I will, therefore, pass over intervening years, and go to 1895–6, a year in which a Tory Government was in office. The Civil Service expenditure in that year was £20,647,000, exactly half what it is now, so that in 14 years the Civil Service expenditure has doubled. They have increased from £20,000,000 to £40,000,000 in the last three years, leaving out the old age pensions. During the period of a Government pledged to economy they have increased by four and a half millions. I consider that to be a very serious matter for the consideration not only of this House, but of the country. I presume it would be out of order to go

1775
into the question of defence or anything of that sort. But I direct the attention of the House to the increase of four and a half millions upon Civil Service, out of which we absolutely get nothing at all. It is not remunerative, it doe3 not provide for the defences of the country; it seems to me it is no good at all, unless to maintain a certain number of people in employment to inspect ourselves and see what we are doing. Probably, as well as appointing inspectors to see what we eat and what we drink, the Government will appoint inspectors to see what time we go to bed. Four and a half millions would provide two "Dreadnoughts," and expenditure in that direction would be far more beneficial to the country than an increase in the Civil Service Estimates.
An hon. Gentleman below the Gangway spoke of the bankrupt state of the country. We are not bankrupt, but there can be no doubt that the expenditure of the country is increasing in an alarming manner, and that the credit of the country has declined for the last three years. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO, no."] The right hon. Gentleman knows what I am saying is the fact. Consols are lower than in his history or mine. Two years ago they were 81. They have gone up a little bit. I do not want to make this a party question, but Consols have touched the lowest point for years. It is the fact, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot get money to satisfy the purchases under the Land Act. Therefore, it is evident that the credit of the country is depreciating. That being so, I think it is absolutely necessary this House should consider where they are going. When they listen to eloquent speeches like the speech delivered by my hon. Friend below the Gangway, speeches in which there is a great deal of truth but which involve large expenditure, the tendency is to allow its sentiment and desire to do good to everyone to run away with the calm judgment which is necessary if you wish to keep equilibrium in national expenditure. You cannot do all those wonderful things except by the expenditure of money. It mean3 an increasing burden, whether on the taxpayer or the ratepayer. The hon. Member for Grimsby advocated that any expenditure ought to be on the taxpayer instead of the ratepayer, but they are practically the same person. It is simply a case of taking it out of one pocket instead of another. I seriously call the
1776
attention of the right hon. Gentleman, who I am glad to see on the Treasury Bench, to the appalling fact that in the last 14 years the Civil Service expenditure has increased from £20,000,000 to £40,000,000.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): The hon. Baronet who has just resumed his seat has not for the first time drawn attention to the heavy expenditure of the country, but I would remind him that shortly before he spoke the hon. Baronet near him invited the Government to involve itself in still further expenditure in support of the local authorities who are now carrying out educational work. I leave the two hon. Gentlemen to settle the difference between themselves. While I am answering the hon. Member for Grimsby I will refer him to the representative of the City of London, and while I am answering the Member for the City I will refer him to the hon. Member for Grimsby. The main increase of the Civil Service Vote during the last few years has been due, as the hon. Baronet said, in the first place to the heavy expenditure on old age pensions; but having left that out of account, he still charges us as being responsible for a very heavy increase of the Civil Service Vote during the last three or four years.
Everyone who knows the Civil Service Estimates as well as the hon. Baronet will be aware of the fact that the largest portion of the increase is due to the heavy charges which have fallen on the Port Office during the last four years. The normal increase of the Post Office expenditure is something like £600,000 a year, and that is going on year after year without our being able to stop it. The volume of the Post Office business, and the natural tendency of Post Office servants to grow older and claim higher incomes, must involve the State in heavier expenditure as regards that Service. Then the hon. Baronet is well aware that the inquiries of the Committee presided over by my hon. Friend who is now Financial Secretary to the Treasury has involved the State in a further expenditure of £700,000. I think that £700,000 has been well-spent money. Some of the best servants of the State are engaged in the Post Office, and the inquiries of the Committee showed that we were not treating the Postal servants as well as we should do. I do not regret a single penny of that expenditure, and I am sure that the hon. Baronet who represents the largest collection of Post

1777
Office clerks in the country will not be the one to say that our expenditure on improving the status of the Post Office servants is badly spent money. Another section of expenditure which is objected to is the rise in the Education Vote. It has not been so marked during the last few years as it was during the time previous to our taking office. But the money has been well spent money, and when the hon. Baronet says that we have had no return, and that it was not remunerative money I would venture to cross swords with him at once, and claim that the money spent on education is most remunerative money. The hon. Baronet asked how it is spent. I think that is a very pertinent question. It is spent very largely in making the children more comfortable, in allowing them to have the best equipped and best trained teachers provided by training colleges and Universities, and also in giving them a chance of being educated in secondary schools. It does to some extent carry out the very objects which my hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvonshire and the right hon. Gentleman pleaded for earlier in the evening. When the hon. Member for Grimsby complained that there had been heavy expenditure out of the rates for the purposes of education during the last few years, I am bound to remind him that the heaviest expenditure out of the rates was the direct result of the Act of 1902. That Act threw a very heavy burden on the rates, and that, I think, has really done more to alter the percentage of education expenditure provided out of the rates and out of the Exchequer than anything done either before or since.
Sir G. DOUGHTY: It has not improved our educational system.
Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am perfectly sure that it has had a great deal to do in improving the education given in voluntary schools supported out of the rates. There have been, of course, very many instances where more money has been spent on denominational schools without in any way altering the system of education, or the persons composing the staffs of those schools. Any claim made on me for money to be spent on education I must at once transfer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvonshire, raised one 'of the most interesting questions that can ever be raised in an educational debate. The money which is spent in the elementary schools I believe is well spent. Our teachers could not be
1778
better than they are to-day. Their classes were never better, and the children were never brought up in better schools. The fact, however, remains that a very large percentage in our large towns, and also, I believe, in our country districts, of children who pass out of the schools, in the course of two or three years, from lack of practice and from lack of guidance, forget altogether the education they have received in the elementary schools. In my own experience, as indeed in that of every one who has attempted to test the classes of our elementary schools, it has been found that the children, after two or three years, have almost forgotten how to write, and completely forgotten how to spell, and a very large number seem to have forgotten simple arithmetic. If they had been put through a reading examination no doubt they would have passed it well; but during the three or four years after they have left school their whole attention was absorbed in their daily work, and they were tired out, and not able to devote themselves to the more intellectual pursuits. This is one of the gaps we hope to fill up. The most of the harm done by boy labour is that the boys' time is so absorbed, and their energies so exhausted over their daily manual work that they cannot be expected to attend evening classes. As the Prime Minister remarked in a recent speech, the problem of boy labour is one that closely touches the great problem of unemployment, and, indeed, the whole range of the poor law; and the Government is now taking seriously into consideration the means whereby we could prevent this enormous leakage from the best classes of boys who are well and expensively trained in our schools. I hope it will be possible, in the course of the next few years, to retain our boys and girls at, school to a higher age than at present. There are very serious objections to that at present. There are great difficulties to overcome. But the fact still remains that in England we are different in this matter to Scotland, where the children are left longer in the elementary school, much to their advantage, and to the advantage of the Scottish people. As to the half-time system, into which a Committee presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for the Elland Division is inquiring, and taking evidence from all over the country, and from many of our great and best industrial districts, they hope very shortly to present a Report upon this important subject. Even on this subject the difficul-

1779
ties are by no means small. We are quite certain in Lancashire, at all events, there are very large sections of the community, very directly interested, and public opinion there is not so far advanced as we should have expected, and liked. I do not think the vote taken amongst the trade unionists of Lancashire last year may be taken as their final decision. I believe that as the time goes on you will find a larger number of parents in Lancashire prepared to see the abolition of the half-time system. Whether that is possible now I cannot tell. I am not prepared to express an opinion upon this question. My hon. Friend mentioned evening continuation schools, which the Consultative Committee of the Board of Education is considering. One of the first things I did when I took office was to ask it to deal with the matter. Ever since then they have been hard at work collecting evidence and working out the details of schemes which have been submitted to them, and schemes that they themselves have evolved. I hope within the course of the next few months that they will have agreed upon their Report, and that the Report may be made public. At the earliest possible moment I shall do what I can to place the House in possession of the vast amount of valuable information they collected. Here, again, the difficulties are by no means small. You do not get rid of the difficulty by pointing out you can organise continuation schools. There are buildings and matters of expense, which agitate the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, to be considered. You have teachers to provide, and you have to provide the organisation of the labour in which these boys are concerned. These are matters of such vital importance and concern that we cannot be expected to legislate until we have had the very best advice of the country. My hon Friend and those who think with him may rest assured that the Government has the matter very eagerly at heart. We are doing all we can to advance the problem at hast a stage further before we lay down office. One of the best pieces of work that the Board of Education or any other Board can do is to carry on the work of the elementary schools either in continuation classes or evening classes, whichever may be the best fitted for the industrial conditions of the young men and women for which they are intended.
Colonel LOCKWOOD: Is there any prospect of relief in the counties on the question of the medical inspection of children?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is not a matter on which I am authorised to say anything at the present moment. A deputation waited on the Prime Minister lately, and that is the latest Government utterance upon the subject.
Lord BALCARRES: I want to say a word about the earlier part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I do not want to criticise him hostilely for what he said. When he referred to this great increase he said it was largely owing to the report of what is known as the Hobhouse Committee, but he overlooked the fact that the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London did not, in estimating the increase, refer to the increase of the Post Office Votes. That is an addition to the increase he mentioned, and to that extent, of course, it makes the enormous increase in our Civil Service Estimates far more serious. With the permission of the House I will quote the figures from the Chancellor as to the increase in the Postal and Revenue Departments. In the first year of office the present Government increased this Estimate by half a million; in the second year of office it jumped up by £926,000, and in the third year, on top of these two increases, it was increased by £763,000. That is to say, the revenue from postal services alone are to-day paying annually a higher sum by £2,150,000 than when the present Government took office. I do not quarrel with the object of it. I am not going into the merits of them; it is not material to my argument. I am putting before the House only the net increase in the annual cost of our public service, and I am showing that the revenue of the postal service costs us to - day £2,150,000 annually more than it did when the present Government came into power. That is the increase in the Civil Service Estimates to which my hon. Friend solely referred. Besides that we find that in the first year of office of the present Government £1,000,000 odd was added to the Estimates, in the second year £1,100,000 odd cumulative, and in the third year £2,200,000 odd—a total annual increase since the present Government came into office of £4,400,000, so that the Revenue Department and the Civil Service, taken in conjunction, show an annual increase of £6,560,000 odd. That is quite irrespective of old age pensions. On the present year old age pensions and a few very minor

1781
matters amount, I think, to £10,000,000 increase. This means that since the present Government took office the Civil Service Estimates, taken in conjunction with the Revenue Department Estimates, show an increase of £16,500,000 annually. I do not want to make a party point of that, but I put to the House very seriously the fact that every year for the last three years our expenditure upon the public Departments in the Civil Service has increased by over £5,000,000. This year there is an increase on the Navy of £3,000,000, and next year perhaps there will be a further increase of another £1,500,000 on the Navy Estimates. About an hour ago the Government barely escaped defeat because they refused to drain the Bann. What I wish to point out is that we cannot indefinitely go on increasing our annual expenditure, armaments altogether apart, by upwards of £5,000,000 a year.
Mr. E. H. CARLILE: I think the House and the country at large will have heard with considerable disappointment the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education in which he summarised the results of the educational work of the country. He told us that, as a result of the enormous expenditure and activity of the Education Department, with its splendid staff of devoted teachers, both men and women, fully qualified to give the instruction which they are expected to give, notwithstanding all this equipment and its immense cost, after two or three years, when the children have passed out of our schools, many of them no longer know how to write, and cannot do the simplest sum of arithmetic; and I think he almost suggested that many of them could scarcely read. At such a time, when that is the condition of things laid before us by the right hon. Gentleman, it is surely most appropriate that some hon. Member coming from any part of the country, whether from the Principality of Wales or elsewhere, should bring before us in the very excellent way in which the hon. Member for Arfon has brought it before us to-night the subject of evening continuation schools. Such speeches as that delivered by the hon. Member for Arfon leads us to think whether the kind of instruction given in our schools is really of the value which it is the custom to attach to it. The condition under which it becomes almost vital that we should have more continuation schools arises partly from the cause to which the President of the Education Department himself has referred. I think the
1782
right hon. Gentleman spoke rather against the half-time system. I gathered from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that he is at the present time considering this particular subject, and that he and his colleague sitting near him are both unsympathetic towards half-time work. I had some experience of half-time schools. It was my privilege many years ago to be manager of a half-time school. We had 300 children in the school. They were engaged at half-time work in textile factories, and, of course, were engaged half-time in the schools. There were a great many excellent schools in the district in which there were no half-time children, but no school could produce, from an educational point of view, the good results that were produced by this half-time school. When the subject years ago was discussed, that school was quoted as an example of what a half-time school could do. The question naturally arises whether the children suffered in their health. There were no more healthy children in the district. They were children with rosy cheeks and good physique, and they spent at the same time half their time in the factories. But after they had left the school, at the age of 13 or 14 years, they were trained or specialised, so that they were well qualified to earn their living. That specialised training in technical work was an invaluable start in their life's work. It led not only to their physical but to their mental qualifications. So they had without the payment of a penny by the ratepayers or taxpayers obtained a specialised training. They got what could be given them in technical or continuation schools. At this particular school it was obtained without any cost to the ratepayers or taxpayers, and the children were specialised in the system they would have to follow in after life. There is no reason why the products of our workshops and factories should not be produced under such a specialised system of training. In order that the children might have an intelligent idea of the work in which they are engaged it is absolutely necessary that in either continuation or technical schools they should have brought before them the whole series of processes of the manufactures to which they will have to devote their lives and have instruction therein. It is only by technical instruction that the British working man can really use the great power of initiative, which the English working man possesses far in excess of any working man in the world—far more than in the Empire of Germany, where the

1783
system of taking youths into the barracks destroys that very power of initiative. Our working men inherit it from a natural inheritance. In order that we may make the most of it, it is necessary that we should have this technical instruction and these continuation schools. I sympathise with the Member for the City of London when he says that the expense would be great. It would be great. At present, however, a large proportion of the instruction is purely wasted; and it is for the country to take this matter into their consideration—whether it would not be well to reduce the expenditure on ornamental instruction and out of the large saving which would result to place some of the money at the disposal of the technological and continuation schools. There are some Members here who profess to take some interest in the welfare of the children of the working classes, but I must say they have a very inconsistent way of showing it.

SUPPLY.
  CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE.
  (IN THE COMMITTEE.)

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1909–10.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next (26th April).
The House adjourned at Three minutes after Eleven of the clock.