Sitting of 20 February 1899

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Three of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, namely:—

Cardiff Railway Bill.

Central London Railway Bill.

Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill.

Crowborough District Water Bill.

East London Water Bill.

East London Water (Temporary Supply) Bill.

Gas Light and Coke Company Bill.

Gateshead and District Tramways Bill.

Great Western Railway Bill.

Harrow and Uxbridge Railway Bill.

1421

Horsforth Water Bill.

Lincoln and East Coast Railway and Dock Bill.

London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway (Pensions) Bill.

Midland and South Western Junction Railway (Northern Section) Bill.

North Pembrokeshire and Fishguard Railway Bill.

Shotley Bridge and Consett District Gas Bill.

South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Companies (New Lines) Bill.

Taff Vale Railway Bill.

Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDERS 62 AND 63 COMPLIED WITH).
Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Orders Nos. 62 and 63 have been complied with, namely—
Metropolitan Water Companies Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 63 COMPLIED WITH).
Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 63 has been complied with, namely—

Central Electric Supply Bill.

County of London and Brush Provincial Electric Lighting Company Bill.

Ilford Gas Bill.

St. James's and Pall Mall Electric Light Bill.

Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

AYR BURGH BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
BELFAST WATER BILL.
To be read a second time to-morrow.
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
BOOTLE CORPORATION BILL.
To be read a second time to-morrow.
BRADFORD TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENT BILL.
To be read a second time upon Tuesday 28th February.
BRIGG URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
BRYNMAWR AND WESTERN VALLEYS RAILWAY BILL.
To be read a second time upon Friday.
BURLEY-IN-WHARFEDALE URBAN DISTRICT WATER BILL.
To be read a second time upon Tuesday 28th February.
CLAY CROSS WATER BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
CORK CORPORATION (FINANCE) BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
CROWBOROUGH DISTRICT GAS BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
DARWEN CORPORATION BILL.
To be read a second time to-morrow.
DERBY CORPORATION TRAMWAYS, ETC., BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
DERBY CORPORATION WATER BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
DUBLIN COPORATION (MARKETS) BILL.
To be read a second time to-morrow.
DUBLIN IMPROVEMENT (BULL ALLEY AREA) BILL.
To be read a second time to-morrow.
EDINBUGH CORPORATION BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
FISHGUARD WATER AND GAS BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
GENERAL POWER DISTRIBUTING COMPANY (SUSPENDED) BILL [H.L.]
To be read a second time upon Friday 3rd March.
GLASGOW CORPORATION TELEPHONES BILL.
To be read a second time upon Monday next.
GODALMING CORPORATION WATER BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
GOOLE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
GREAT NORTHERN AND STRAND RAILWAY BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
HIGHLAND WATER POWER BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
HORSFORTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (WATER) BILL.
To be read a second time upon Tuesday, 28th February.
ILFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL GAS BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
KINGSCOURT, KEADY, AND ARMAGH RAILWAY BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.

LEEDS CORPORATION BILL.
On the order for the second reading of the Leeds Corporation Bill.
MR. JEFFREYS: I do not wish to object to the second reading of the Bill, but I have an instruction down on the paper which I wish to be carried on by order.
MR. SPEAKER: I will call upon the honourable Member to move his instruction after the second leading has been gone through.
Bill read a second time, and committed.

LEICESTER CORPORATION WATER BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
LEICESTER, GROBY, AND BRADGATE PARK RAILWAY BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
LISBURN TOWN COMMISSIONERS BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
To be read a second time upon Tuesday 28th February.
LONDON IMPROVEMENTS BILL.
To be read a second time upon Tuesday 28th February.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
On the order for the second reading of the Manchester Corporation Bill,
MR. JEFFREYS: On behalf of my honourable Friend, who is not here, I wish to have the instruction standing in his name put down by order.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Gentleman does not object to the second reading?
MR. JEFFREYS: No, Sir.
MR. SPEAKER: I will call upon the honourable Member to move the instruction. If it is objected to I will order it for another day.
MR. JEFFREYS: I beg, Sir, to move the instruction standing in my name.
MR. CALDWELL: As a matter of form, I object.
MR. SPEAKER: To-morrow.

MILTON CREEK CONSERVANCY BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENT BILL.
To be read a second time to-morrow.
STOCKPORT CORPORATION BILL.
To be read a second time to-morrow.
STOCKPORT CORPORATION WATER BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
WARRINGTON CORPORATION BILL.
To be read a second time tomorrow.
WEST METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.

WETHERBY DISTRICT WATER BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
The following Bills were also read a second time, and committed:—
New Mills Urban District Council (Water) Bill; North West London Railway Bill; Nottingham Corporation Bill; Nuneaton and Chilvers Coton Urban District Council Water Bill; Otley Urban District Council Water Bill; Rhondda Urban District Council Bill; St. David's Water and Gas Bill: Scunthorpe Urban District Gas and Water Bill; Sheffield Corporation (Derwent Valley) Water Bill; Sheffield Corporation Markets Bill; Shirebrook and District Gas Bill; South Staffordshire Stipendiary Justice Bill.

PRIVATE BILL WITHDRAWN.
  LONDONDERRY AND LOUGH SWILLY RAILWAY BILL.
  Order [14th February] for referring the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Bill to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills read, and discharged:—Bill withdrawn.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
PETITIONS.
  CLOGHER UNION (DISMISSAL OF GUARDIANS AND RATE COLLECTOR).
  Petition from Waterford, for inquiry; to lie upon the Table.
GROUND RENTS (TAXATION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
Petition from Keith, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
INEBRIATES ACT, 1898.
Petitions for alteration of Law;—From Ely;—and, Salford; to lie upon the Table.
POOR LAW RELIEF (DISFRANCHISEMENT).
Petition from Prestwich, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
Petitions in favour;—From Ashford;—Dorking;—Hartlepool;—and, Manchester; to lie upon the Table.
SOOPAN, SHEIKH, AND OTHERS.
Petition of Sheikh Soopan and others, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
VACCINATION ACT, 1898.
Petitions for repeal;—From Hartlepool;—and, Henley; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  INQUIRY INTO CHARITIES (COUNTY OF CARMARTHEN).
  Return (presented 17th February) to be printed. (No. 67.)
TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
Copy presented,—of Seventh Annual Report of the Proceedings of the Inspection Committee for the year ended 20th November 1898 (by Act); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 68.)
IRISH LAND COMMISSION (JUDICIAL RENTS).
Copy presented,—of Returns of Judicial Rents fixed during June 1898 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
TREATY SERIES (No. 3, 1899).
Copy presented,—of Exchange of Notes between Great Britain and Portugal relative to the Delimitation of the Frontier between the British and Portuguese Possessions in Amatongaland (by Command); to lie upon the Table.

NEW WRITS.
For Borough of Hythe, in the room of General Sir James Bevan Edwards, K.C.M.G., C.B. (Manor of Northstead).—(Sir William Walrond.)
For County of York, West Riding (Elland Division), in the room of Thomas Wayman, esquire (Chiltern Hundreds).—(Mr. Thomas Ellis.)

RETURN ORDERED.
  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS CLOSED, ETC., 1897.
  Return ordered, "of the Public Elementary Schools not provided by School Boards which have been closed or transferred to School Boards since the commencement of the Voluntary Schools Act, 1897, giving in each case the reason assigned by the managers for closure or transfer."—(Mr. Bartley.)
NEW MEMBER SWORN.
John Throgmorton Middlemore, esquire, for Borough of Birmingham (North Division).
QUESTIONS.

  WORKSHOP RULES IN THE POTTERIES.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether two sets of special rules are in force at present in the Potteries; whether, since the alternative rules, as fixed by arbitration, came into operation, any employer has made use of powers, under Section 10 of the Factory and Workshops Act of 1891, to pass from the more stringent rules, as originally promulgated by the Home Office, to laxer rules, fixed by arbitration; and, if so, in how many cases has this occurred; and whether, as regards dangerous trades in general, special

  1429
  rules issued for a trade have been altered under the same section at the request of individual employers in so far as they apply to their factories; and, if so, in what cases this has occurred?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. As regards the second question, I find out that out of over 400 firms manufacturing earthenware and china which were under what are termed in the Question the more stringent rules seven have applied under Section 10 of the Act to be allowed to come under the rules as fixed by arbitration, and they have been allowed to do so. With respect to other trades certified as dangerous, it appears that in two out of the very numerous works affected advantage has been taken of the same section. These two were an india-rubber factory and an electric accumulator works.

CORNISH POLICE REGULATIONS.
MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a case heard at the Bodmin Assizes a fortnight ago, when a copy of the Cornish police regulations was shown to the judge, in which a statement appeared, on the suggested authority of the late Lord Chief Justice Denman, to the effect that constables were not to caution prisoners; and whether, inasmuch as there is reason to believe that a similar statement is contained in the regulations of other police forces, he will take steps, by the issue of a Home Office Circular, or otherwise, to secure its removal.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: My attention has been called to this case, and I understand that the statement in question is to be omitted from the regulations for the Cornish police. I am not aware that a similar statement is to be found in the regulations of any other police force, and I have therefore at present no reason to think that a general circular is called for.

RED SEA LIGHTS.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made since the last Session of Parliament in obtaining the agreement of the Powers concerned to the establishment of the lights required for the safe navigation of the southern portion of the Red Sea and of the Gulf of Aden?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): An exchange of views is taking place with the French Government on the subject, but the negotiations have not reached a sufficiently advanced stage to enable me to make any further statement in regard to them at the present time.

ARMY AND NAVY RESERVISTS IN POSTAL SERVICE.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether the Postmaster-General will grant to Army and Navy Reserve men employed in the postal service, whether provisionally or permanently, the privilege of wearing good conduct badges acquired in their former service, with corresponding advantages of pay and pension; and, if he will state why Reserve men in the postal service, and possessed of such good conduct badges, are not permitted to wear them?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The Postmaster-General has no objection to allowing these men the privilege of wearing their badges, but is not prepared to grant any increase of pay.
SIR J. FERGUSSON: Is it not the case that postmen who have served in other civil departments have their previous service recognised?
MR. WYNDHAM: As my right honourable and gallant Friend knows, Army reservists draw no good conduct pay, and have no uniform; they are only supplied with a badge.

INCREASE OF THE ROYAL ARTILLERY.
MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what is the reason why the additional batteries of artillery, promised last Session by the Secretary of State for War, have not been raised; and at what date may their full establishment be looked for?
MR. WYNDHAM: It was stated in the memorandum of the Secretary of State relating to the Army Estimates, 1898–99, that the formation of the 15 new batteries of Field Artillery would be spread over three years, and I am able to say that live batteries will have been raised by the 31st March next. It is intended to raise the same number in each of the two succeding years.
MR. COGHILL: Will the live batteries be fully equipped as regards men?
MR. WYNDHAM: Yes.
MR. WARNER: And as regards horses, too?
MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir, five batteries will be raised in every sense of the word.

SHERCOCK POSTMAN'S WAGES.
MR. DALY: I Leg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that the wages paid for delivering letters from Shercock to Killan and Northlands, County Cavan, is 1s. per week less than was paid to the present postman's predecessor; whether he is aware that the present postman, James Duffy, on the route stated, has neither cap, coat, nor cape from the Post Office authorities; and whether he will increase Duffy's wages by 1s. per week, and also furnish him with a coat and cap immediately?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The wages paid to the auxiliary postman working from Shercock to Killan
1432
and Northlands were 1s. above the scale payment for the amount of work done, and they were therefore marked to be reduced to scale when a vacancy occurred. By an unfortunate error the post was stated to be vacant on the 23rd November, and the reduction was therefore made from that date. As it now appears that James Duffy had been employed since June 1898, at the higher rate of wages, instructions have been given for that rate to be continued to him. Certain articles of clothing have not yet been supplied to this man, and instructions have been issued for this to be done at once, and inquiry made as to the reason for the delay.

GOVERNMENT TELEPHONE SERVICE.
MR. PROVAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether the Government intends to adopt the suggestion of the Select Committee on Telephones of last year, and, following the precedent of the Electric Lighting Act of 1882, pass into law a general Act under which local authorities can, by obtaining Provisional Orders, secure the right to establish telephone service in their own telephone areas?
MR. HANBURY: Yes, Sir, the Government intend to introduce a Bill based on the recommendations of the Select Committee of last year.

RIFLE RANGE AT LICHFIELD.
MR. WARNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what sort of arrangement he referred to as having been made for a range near Whittington Barracks, Lichfield; if it is true that no land has been purchased near there for a range, and no contract to purchase land entered into; and, is it intended to seek compulsory powers from Parliament?
MR. WYNDHAM: I have already informed the honourable Member that a site for a range near Lichfield is among those selected as suitable for

1433
purchase by Government. In all such cases the War Office endeavours to effect a friendly arrangement, but holds in reserve compulsory powers. It hampers the action of the Government to state, in any particular case, the exact stage to which negotiations have been carried.
MR. WARNER: Has any progress been made within the last three months?
MR. WYNDHAM: We have every hope that we shall secure a range in the immediate neighbourhood of these barracks, and it would hamper our efforts, as I think the honourable Member must see, to state in public the exact stage of the negotiations.

MILITARY RIFLE RANGES.
MR. WARNER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War what moneys have been expended in buying ranges during the present financial year?
MR. WYNDHAM: About £40,000.

MILITIA TRAININGS.
MR. WARNER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War on what principle Militia battalions are selected to attend manœuvres; and why some have hardly ever been and others are selected every two or three years?
MR. WYNDHAM: The selection of Militia battalions for the manœuvres depends almost entirely on the nature of the employment of the Militiamen. When the men's employment is likely to be affected by their being called out at the period fixed for manœuvres the battalions concerned are, as a rule, exempted.

STAFFORDSHIRE YEOMANRY.
MR. WARNER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War is: hero any intention of moving the annual training of the Staffordshire Yeomanry away from Lichfield?
MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir.

LEAD POISONING AT THE ENFIELD FACTORY.
MR. MADDISON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a man employed at the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield, named Charles George Bassett, has been discharged on the plea that he absented himself from work without leave, whereas it was caused by illness certified by five medical men as due to lead poisoning contracted at the factory; and whether he will direct that a special inquiry shall be held into all the circumstances of the case, including the absence of the necessary precautions in the department where the lead work was done.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL WILLIAMS,): I have to thank the Honourable Member for having twice postponed this Question. The Secretary of State has caused careful inquiry to be made into the case of Charles George Bassett. Bassett was discharged from the Enfield Factory on November 1st because he refused to do certain machine-work, involving very little exertion, to which he was put. Two civilian medical officers certified that he was then no longer suffering from lead poisoning, and was fit to follow the occupation provided for him. The present somewhat unsatisfactory condition of his general health is, in the opinion of the Medical Officer of the Waltham Abbey Factory, who recently examined him, due to a cause totally different from lead poisoning; but, in order to remove any doubt that may possibly remain upon the subject, the Secretary of State will have a further medical examination made, and the result shall be communicated to the honourable Member. It is not the fact that the necessary precautions in the department where lead work is done are not observed.

GRIMSBY TRAWLERS IN DANISH WATERS.
MR. DOUGHTY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the treatment of British fishermen off the Faroe Islands by a Danish gunboat; whether

1435
he is aware that on Sunday night, 5th February, when 23 Grimsby and Hull steam trawlers had taken shelter from the severe weather in Fugleford Bay, they were arrested and ordered to proceed to Shorshaven under escort of the gunboat; that when two of them slightly altered their course to speak each other the gunboat opened fire on them; that the captains were ordered ashore and detained there for five hours in a severe snowstorm; that fines were inflicted on them, varying from £3 to £12; and that in one case the whole of the fishing gear as well as the whole of the fish, was taken off the vessel and confiscated; and that they were charged with the trivial offence of having broken the new Danish law, which only came into operation four days before, and of which the fishermen were entirely ignorant, namely, of being laid in Danish waters not having stowed their gear away; and whether he will institute a searching inquiry into the whole question, and represent the case fully to the Danish Government, and take such steps as may be possible to secure the alteration of this law, and secure for British fishermen the same treatment when in Danish waters that Her Majesty's Government gives to Danish fishing vessels when in British territorial waters?
ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg at the same time to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any representation has been made to the Danish Government relative to the action pursued by the Danish authorities in the Faroe Islands, who seized 23 trawlers from Hull and Grimsby, which had taken refuge in Fugleford Harbour through stress of weather, and inflicted heavy fines in some cases for breach of some local bye-laws, to the extent of £45 in the case of the "Hypatia," besides confiscation of her entire cargo of fish and gear to the extent of 100 tons; and whether the Secretary of State will cause a thorough inquiry to be instituted into the circumstances of the alleged ill-treatment complained of.
MR. BRODRICK: A report of these occurrences has reached the Foreign Office through a telegram published in a Danish newspaper and a communication from the honourable Member. The at-
1436
tention of the Danish Government was at once called to the matter, and the Danish Government have undertaken to use their best endeavours to expedite the official report from the captain of the Danish war vessel in question. Pending this no action can be taken.
MR. DOUGHTY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the arrest of 23 Grimsby and Hull steam trawlers by a Danish gunboat on Sunday night, 5th February, when sheltering from the severe weather off Faroe Islands; whether he is aware that similar treatment used to be practised by Danish gunboats on British trawlers off the coast of Iceland before Her Majesty's Government sent gunboats to protect British fishermen; and whether he will station at the Icelandic and Faroe fisheries during the present fishing season gunboats to protect our fishermen and British trade interests against such practices?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): The Admiralty have received no official communication on the subject to which the honourable Gentleman refers, nor is it known to what cases he alludes in the second paragraph of this Question. With regard to the third Question, even if gunboats were stationed in the waters of Iceland or the Faroe Islands they would not be entitled to protect our fishermen against penalties for breaches of Danish law to which they may have rendered themselves liable.

SECOND DIVISION CLERKS.
COLONEL DALBIAC: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, how many abstractors have been promoted to the Second Division at the minimum salary of £70 per annum; and what is the present number of those assistant clerks who have been promoted from boy clerk or boy copyist at a commencing salary of £55 per annum?
MR. HANBURY: Ten abstractors have been promoted to the Second Division at the minimum salary of £70. The number of boy clerks and boy copyists who have been appointed to be assistance clerks at a commencing salary of £55 in 489.

THE BARKING OUTRAGE.
MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the case of a child, five years old, who was outraged and murdered near Barking a few weeks ago, any steps have been taken to aid the local police authorities to trace the murderer; whether outrages of this horrible character are on the increase; and if any special attention is being given to the matter by the Home Office?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The case occurred within the Metropolitan Police District, and from the moment of its discovery has received all the attention which the resources of the Criminal Investigation Department can afford. The victim was not outraged, and the actual cause of death was drowning. Crimes of the nature alluded to are, happily, rare, and are not, I am glad to say, on the increase in the metropolis, or, I believe, elsewhere.

WEST AFRICAN LIQUOR TRAFFIC.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, what is the present position of affairs in regard to the proposed International Conference to deal with the question of the liquor trade on the West Coast of Africa?
MR. BRODRICK: The Belgian Government have issued invitations, and desire that the Conference should meet at the earliest possible date, but the actual date has not yet been decided.

CAPTAIN FINLAYSON'S CASE.
MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if the Secretary of State for War is aware of the probability of the late Veterinary Captain Finlayson's suicide while of unsound mind was directly due to the compulsion he was under from the authorities to resign his commission, as also to his prosecution on a civil charge of which he had not been found guilty, and to the possibility of his mind having been affected by the conditinos of foreign
1438
service and exposure to sun, and in view of the Government having thereby avoided payment of the gratuity of £800 to which the deceased officer would have otherwise been entitled, the granting of which must have been intended as forming part of their decision that this officer should resign his commission, he is prepared to take some further steps than the offer as a compassionate allowance to the deceased officer's parents of £20, subsequently supplemented by £10, and again by another £20, making a total of £50, the deceased officer having been the main support of his parents for many years?
MR. WYNDHAM: All the facts of this case have been fully considered, and I regret that I can add nothing to my previous answer.
MR. PIRIE: This is a very important matter, and I desire, therefore, to ask a further Question. Was not the granting of this £800 a substantial element in the Government's decision that the Commission should be resigned?
MR. WYNDHAM: I have already explained that the decision in these cases, arbitrary as it may seem, must depend on the date of the signification of Her Majesty's approval. There are, I can assure the honourable Member, other cases which, on the face of them, seem as hard as this, but the Secretary of State cannot go back on the decision given.
MR. PIRIE: Has a question of insanity—as in this case—ever been under consideration before?
[No Reply.]
MR. PIRIE: I shall call the attention of this House to the matter on the Estimates.

LEAD POISONING AT BURSLEM.
MR. HOLLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the death of Jane Heath, a potters' colour mixer, of epilepsy on 2nd January last at Burslem, and to the fact that no in-

1439
quest was held into the cause of her death; and whether he would suggest to the Coroner for the district to order an inquest into every case of death where lead poisoning is suspected.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I have made inquiry into this case, and find that the death was duly reported to the Coroner, who, after consultation with the medical practitioner who had attended the deceased, accepted his opinion that death was not attributable to lead poisoning, and decided that a formal inquest was unnecessary. The certifying surgeon who examined the girl month by month during the short time she worked at the factory had found no evidence of lead poisoning. At the same time, though I have no power to interfere with the discretion of the Coroner, I think that where there may be a doubt as to whether death is due to lead poisoning, it is desirable that an inquest should be held.

SHIPOWNERS AND LIGHTHOUSE BOARDS.
MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the funds for the construction and maintenance of the lighthouses of the United Kingdom are derived from a tax on shipping, and of the remarks of the Mercantile Marine Fund Committee of 1894 as to the absence of shipowners on the English Board, the absence not only of shipowners but of shipmasters on the Scotch Board, and the uncertain and small proportion of men bearing such qualifications on the Irish Board, he will initiate such measures as will give shipowners, who pay the tax, direct representation upon the Lighthouse Boards of England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG,): My right honourable Friend has asked me to reply to Questions addressed to him to-day. This matter is receiving the careful consideration of my right honourable Friend, but I am not able to make any announcement on the subject at the present moment.

FAIR RENT APPEALS.
MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the importance to tenant farmers of getting early information of the date of the order fixing fair rent where the rules provide that notice of appeal must be served within two calendar months from the date of order; and whether, under the circumstances, he will consider the desirability of suggesting to the Land Commission the advisability of having the decisions and dates of the orders communicated to the solicitors for the parties?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD W. BALFOUR,): The time within which parties must serve notice of appeal against orders made upon applications to fix fair rents under the Land Law Acts is limited to two months from the date of the order appealed against, but notifications of the decisions of the different Sub-Commissions, with the dates of the orders, issue, except in very exceptional cases, within four days from the date of the order in the case to the landlord or his agent, and to the tenant. In addition to these notifications, lists of the decisions are sent to be posted at the local Court House as soon as the decisions are pronounced, while solicitors who desire that the decisions in any special cases in which they are interested may be notified to them, can obtain such notification on furnishing the Deputy-Registrar of the Sub-Commission with a list of the particular cases in which such decisions are required. It is not the intention of the Commissioners to alter the existing practice.

BELFAST TELEGRAPH STATIONS.
MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, with reference to the want of receiving and delivering telegraph stations in the centre of the city of Belfast, whether he is aware that there is not a single station between Waring Street and all along Donegall Street up to the Crumlin

1441
Road; and whether he will consider the desirability of establishing one at the post office in Donegall Street beside the Grand Métropole Hotel?
MR. HANBURY: There is no telegraph office along the line of route in Belfast described by the honourable Member. The question of establishing an office in Donegall Street has been more than once considered, but, as it is nearly two years since the last inquiry was made, a further report shall be called for, and the result communicated to the honourable Member.

DEFENCES OF THE BRISTOL CHANNEL.
MAJOR DALBIAC: On behalf of the honourable Member for the Egremont Division of Cumberland, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, in view of the fact that most of the best coal used in Her Majesty's Navy is obtained from Cardiff, whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Bristol Channel is, for all practical purposes, absolutely undefended; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this state of affairs?
MR. WYNDHAM: The revised scheme for the armament of our coast defences provides a certain number of guns of the latest type for the defence of the Bristol Channel, but I am unable to tell the honourable Member how soon they will be supplied.

RE-VACCINATION.
MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether anyone can be re-vaccinated by the public vaccinator free of charge; and whether a certificate of re-vaccination can be obtained free or at a small fee by anyone who wishes for it after re-vaccination.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. CHAPLIN,): Any person who is not less than 10 years of age and has not been previously re-vaccinated
1442
within a period of 10 years may be re-vaccinated by the public vaccinator free of charge. In such a case it is the duty of the public vaccinator, if so required, to deliver to the person re-vaccinated a certificate of the result of the operation.

INEBRIATES ACT.
MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he proposes that the expenses of the prosecution of an offence under Section 2 of the Inebriates Act, 1898, tried on indictment, shall be defrayed?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I propose that these expenses should be payable as in cases of felony. A short Bill to effect this will be introduced immediately.

POSTAL COLLECTIONS IN BELFAST.
MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware of the great inconvenience experienced in Belfast by the inhabitants of Balmoral and the adjoining district in consequence of the absence of a late postal collection or one early in the following morning; and whether, as Marlborough Park district has five deliveries in the day and the Balmoral and Osborne Park district only three, he will favourably consider the matter in the interest of a rapidly increasing population in this extensive district within the boundary of the city of Belfast?
MR. HANBURY: The first morning collection in the district referred to is made at 9.5 a.m., and the last evening collection at 7.45 p.m., and these hours are considered in the circumstances to afford reasonable accommodation. The question of making an earlier morning collection has been examined recently, but it was found that the amount of correspondence was not sufficient to justify the increase of expenditure involved, and it is regretted, therefore, that no change can be made

1443
in this respect at present. As regards the delivery service, inquiry shall be made whether any increase is warranted in the present number of deliveries, and the result shall be communicated to the honourable Member.

GUN LICENCES IN IRELAND.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the honourable Member for West Clare, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, is he aware that Mr. Brady, resident magistrate for county Clare, persistently refuses to grant a gun licence to Mr. Patrick Casey, of Cusheen, county Clare, although the granting of the said gun licence has been recommended by the principal magistrates of county Clare and the local district inspector of police; and will he inquire on what grounds such a refusal is made to grant the gun licence in question?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This is a repetition of a Question put to me by the same honourable Member on the 26th April, 1898. I have nothing to add to my reply to the Question.

TRAWLERS ON FISHING BANKS.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Fishery Board for Scotland has received a copy of a resolution which was carried unanimously at a recent meeting of the Ross and Cromarty County Council, calling upon Her Majesty's Government to take steps to prevent trawlers destroying fishing banks and immature fish within the 13 mile limit; and further, that fishing banks situated in firths or inlets of the sea be at once closed to trawlers, as otherwise a large fishing population, who are entirely dependent on line fishing for their existence, will be deprived of the means of gaining a living; and will he state what action the Fishery Board have taken in the matter?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The Resolution referred to was, I am informed by
1444
the Fishery Board, submitted at their meeting of 25th November last, when the Board directed that the county clerk of Ross and Cromarty should be informed that the prohibition of trawling within 13 miles of the coast involved a question of international law, regarding which the Board could take no action.

CONGESTION IN THE ISLAND OF LEWIS.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Congested Districts Board have yet had under consideration the resolutions carried at a meeting of the crofters of the townships of Shader, Sheshader, Aird, and Portnaguran, in the Island of Lewis, urging that there is ample land contiguous to those townships not suitable for grazing, but which if cultivated would afford sustenance for the numerous cottars, &c, in these districts; and whether, with a view to relieve the present congestion, the board propose to make efforts to acquire the lands indicated?
MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Resolutions referred to by the honourable Member in favour of the creation of two-acre crofts were considered by the Congested Districts Board along with the statement to the same effect by the Landward Committee of the Stornoway Parish Council. The board's decision on the question of such inadequate holdings is given in their Report, page 17, and appendix No. III., which has been presented to Parliament.

STATIONERY AT THE ADMIRALTY.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Departmental Committee which was appointed last year to consider the question of stationery used in the Admiralty Offices have yet made their Report?
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN,): Yes, Sir.
MR. WEIR: When will the Report be issued to Members?
MR. A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it is intended to issue it to Members.
MR. WEIR: Where can I get a copy?
MR. A. CHAMBERLAIN: It is a Departmental Report, which it is not intended to publish.
MR. WEIR: Is the honourable Gentleman not aware that the First Lord of the Admiralty—
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

COMMISSIONERS OF WOODS AND FORESTS.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, having regard to the fact that the 47th Annual Report of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests was signed as far back as the 28th June, will he state why it was not published until the middle of December?
MR. HANBURY: The Report was sent to the printers on the 4th of July, and was published on the 26th of November, not in the middle of December. I agree with the honourable Member that the time occupied was excessive. The proofs sent to the Office of Woods appear to have been revised and returned with fair promptitude; but I think undue time was taken by the printers.
MR. WEIR: It was the middle of December and not the 26th November when this Report was received.
MR. HANBURY: I think the honourable Member is wrong.
MR. WEIR: I can assure the right honourable Gentleman I am quite right.

LONDON SCHOOL BOARD ACCOUNTS.
MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board at what dates the accounts of the School Board for London are audited; and whether he will give greater publicity to the dates for
1446
the use of those who wish to object before the auditor to the cost of instruction given to pupils not earning Parliamentary grants in accordance with the Minutes of the Education Department, but who are registered in day or evening schools under the Department of Science and Art; since this cost, if charged upon the school fund, is illegal in the opinion of the Committee of Council on Education?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: The accounts of the School Board for London are audited half-yearly, usually in the months of February and August. At least 14 days' notice is given of the date of the audit by advertisement on two consecutive days in The Times, and printed notices of the audit are placed outside the Offices of the School Board and also outside every school belonging to them. The audit of the accounts for the half-year ended 29th September last is now in progress, and will probably continue for some weeks. The audit is held at the Offices of the School Board, and whilst it continues any ratepayer may at any time attend and object to any item in the accounts. Moreover, the auditor would be willing to make a special appointment to hear any such objection, if application is made to him for the purpose before the audit is closed.

LONGFORD MILITIA.
MR. BLAKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for. War whether it is intended to remove the Longford Militia to Mullingar; whether it is possible to allow the regiment to be quartered and trained in Longford; whether the strength of the Longford regiment is considerably greater than that of the Westmeath regiment at Mullingar; and whether, if the two regiments are to be trained together, it would be possible to move the Westmeath instead of the Longford regiment?
MR. WYNDHAM: It has been decided to amalgamate the Longford and Westmeath Militia Battalions of the Rifle Brigade into one eight-company battalion. At present each has an establishment of five companies, but this has proved too

1447
high, in each case for the recruiting capacity of the battalion. There are 390 men in the Longford, as against 360 in the Westmeath Battalion. The new battalion will have its headquarters and train at Mullingar. A range suited to the Lee-Metford rifle can be provided at Mullingar and not at Longford.

THE JUDICIAL BENCH.
MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any steps to give effect to the publicly expressed opinions of the Lord Chief Justice of England and of the Incorporated Law Society, that additional judges should be appointed, or would they be prepared to consent to the appointment of a Committee to consider the present state of legal business?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I shall be glad if the honourable Member will postpone this Question, as I have not yet had an opportunity of consulting my colleagues.

PORTE AND ARMENIAN ORPHANAGES.
MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been directed to the orders of the Sublime Porte to the provincial governors in Asiatic Turkey, closing several orphanages and schools opened and supported by British and American societies for the benefit of the Armenian population; and whether the Secretary of State will take steps to obtain the revocation of any orders restricting philanthropic efforts of that description in Asiatic Turkey?
MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Government have not received any information with regard to those reported orders of the Sublime Porte. But their attention has been called to the matter, and Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople will be requested to report. Sir N. O'Conor may be trusted to do all that is in his power to dissuade the Turkish Government from any steps of the kind.

THE CONSTANTINOPLE MASSACRES.
MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now able to state the steps which will be taken to obtain from the Porte the compensation claimed by the British merchants of Constantinople in their petition of September 1896, asking for redress in consequence of the losses sustained by them in August of that year through the massacre of Armenians residing in Hasskeui and Stamboul?
MR. BRODRICK: I am unable yet to state the steps that will be taken to obtain the compensation claimed from the Porte. The matter has not been lost sight of, and Her Majesty's Government are concerting with other Powers for the purpose of obtaining consideration of the claims. The British Ambassador and the United States Minister made fresh representations on the subject in November last.

FLEET PAYMASTERS.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty will he explain why several Fleet Paymasters of the Royal Navy who have attained the age for optional retirement have recently been refused permission to retire, but directed to apply again in two or three months; whether, in the event of their request being granted later on, they will be ante-dated to the dates of their applications, in order to prevent serious pecuniary loss to these officers; and whether there are 20 assistant paymasters of over 10 years' standing available to fill the vacancies of officers allowed to retire under the regulations?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Optional retirement has been suspended in the cases referred to by the honourable and gallant Member, because the services of the officers cannot be dispensed with. There are, no doubt, assistant paymasters fit for promotion, but the total number of senior paymasters and assistant paymasters together is not more than is wanted under present conditions. The privilege of optional retirement is always dependent

1449
on the exigencies of the service, so that there is no question of any officer refused retirement before the regular age for retirement having any claim in respect of pecuniary loss.

TIRAH EXPEDITION.
COLONEL WYNDHAM MUERAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any Reports have been received from the General Officer Commanding in India on the subject of the effects of the rifle fire of British and Native Infantry, as well as of that of their opponents, during the late Tirah campaign, with comparisons and deductions which may be of future service; and, if so, whether he could lay these Reports before the House?
MR. WYNDHAM: A Report has been made on the surgical history of the Tirah expeditionary force for 1897–98, showing the effects of the rifle fire of the enemy on the British and Native troops. As the enemy were in possession of rifles and ammunition similar to those used by the British troops, a fair estimate can be taken of the effect of these weapons. I shall be glad to show the Report to the honourable Member.

AUSTRALIAN MINTS.
MR. HOGAN: (Tipperary, Mid): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Australian branches of the Royal Mint have received permission to coin silver; and, if so, under what conditions?
MR. HANBURY: The question has recently been again under the consideration of the Treasury; and the Treasury have intimated to the Colonial Office that, if the practical difficulties attending the grant of the permission can be surmounted by the Colonial authorities to the satisfaction of the Treasury, the loss of Imperial Revenue shall not stand in the way of acceding to the wishes of the Australian Colonies.

SAMOA.
MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to acquaint the House with the main facts of the British Consul's Report on recent disturbances in Samoa?
MR. BRODRICK: Dispatches from Her Majesty's Consul respecting the recent disturbances in Samoa have not yet been received, and I am, therefore, not in a position to make any statement on the subject.

PARCELS FOR KLONDYKE.
MR. HERMON-HODGE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether the parcels for Dawson City, Klondyke, are still received at all English post offices, and are conveyed to Ottawa before the senders are advised that there is no parcel, post to Dawson City; and why such information is not furnished to English consignors in less time than four months from the dispatch of their parcels?
MR. HANBURY: Parcels for Dawson City and other places in the Yukon District are no longer forwarded from here to Canada by parcel post. Until recently such parcels have been sent to British Columbia (not to Ottawa) in accordance with information supplied by the Canadian Post Office. It appears however, from notices recently received, that, owing no doubt to the difficulties of transport, that office has been unable to send parcels to the district in question; and instructions have been given not to accept such parcels for transmission by parcel post from this country. The Postmaster-General is endeavouring to ascertain positively why the Canadian Post Office did not, until a week or two ago, report that parcels from the United Kingdom for Dawson City, &c, were lying undelivered in Canada. He can only suppose that early means of sending on the parcels were hoped for.

BANTRY QUARTER SESSIONS.
MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that men from the Castletown Berehaven district were compelled by summons to attend as jurors at the Bantry Quarter Sessions recently held; whether he is aware that a few of them, whose annual poor law valuation is £6, had to travel a distance of 45 miles to Bantry, making a total journey of 90 miles; whether he will direct the sheriff of the county of Cork to exempt men of this class from future attendance as jurors at Bantry; and whether, in view of the fact that in Ireland the attendance of jurors causes great hardship and inconvenience, the Government will have legislative provision made for the payment of jurors' travelling expenses there.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed by the Clerk of the Peace that four jurors from the district of Castletown Berehaven attended the recent Bantry Quarter Sessions. Only two of these jurors travelled the distance mentioned in the second paragraph, and in none of the four cases is the juror rated at an annual value of less than £11. I have no power to act as suggested in the third paragraph. As regards the last paragraph, the question is a general one affecting the United Kingdom as a whole, and I am not prepared to recommend special legislation in the matter for Ireland.

THE STEAMSHIP "TREVEAU."
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state why the Board of Trade official at Penarth, who signed on Russian and Swedish seamen on board the s.s. "Treveau," on 12th December 1898, insisted upon an interpreter being present; whether this interpreter could speak both Russian and Swedish, and was a person duly qualified to discharge the function of an interpreter; and whether he can give his name and address?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (for Mr. RITCHIE): An
1452
interpreter was insisted upon by the Board of Trade officer at Penarth in the case of the "Treveau," because the Russian seamen engaged did not know English. The interpreter employed was Michael Poll, a Russian Finn, of 3, South Londown Place, Cardiff, who appeared to have an adequate knowledge of Russian. It was not necessary for him to know Swedish, as the Swede engaged appeared to understand the agreement.

LASCARS IN THE P. & O. SERVICE.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the number of Lascars employed as sailors, firemen, and coal trimmers on board the Peninsular and Oriental steamship "Australia," which is due to sail from London on the 23rd instant, and whether he can state how many cubic feet of space is provided for each Lascar in the forecastle of this vessel; whether the said vessel is a British ship registered in the United Kingdom, and whether the crew of this vessel has allotted to them the cuble accommodation as provided by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894; and whether he can state if the forecastle of this vessel has been inspected by Board of Trade officials during the time she has been in dock?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (for Mr. RITCHIE): As some points of difference have arisen between the officers of the Board of Trade and the Peninsular and Oriental Company as to the actual measurements of the "Australia," and as to the numbers of her Lascar crew, I will ask the honourable Member to postpone his Question for a day or two until the Board of Trade are in possession of more complete information.
MR. W. REDMOND: Will the Government discourage the employment of coloured labour in vessels receiving a Government subsidy.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: It is obvious that I cannot give any undertaking in the absence of my right honourable Friend.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I will put a further Question on Friday.

NEW YORK CONSULAR SHIPPING OFFICE.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what alterations, if any, have been made in Her Britannic Majesty's Consular Shipping Office at New York, United States of America, with regard to the engagement and discharge of seamen; whether instructions have been given to exclude all crimps, boarding house keepers, and others from such office during the time of engagement or discharge of seamen; whether seamen now receive their advance notes in the Consulate; whether shipping fees are still exacted from seamen by crimps; and whether police officers have been engaged to maintain order and prevent seamen being assaulted whilst transacting business in the shipping office?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (for Mr. RITCHIE): The matter referred to in the Question is one of very considerable difficulty. My right honourable Friend has been in communication with the Foreign Office and with the Consul General at New York on the subject with a view to improving matters, and the Question is still receiving careful consideration.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Has this Question not been before the Board of Trade since July last?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: I believe it has.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: When are we likely to have a Report as to what has been done in the matter?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: I cannot say more than I have already said.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I will put a further Question on Friday.

THE SOUDAN.
MR. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will present a Return showing the amounts in which Egypt is stated by him to be indebted for military and financial assistance given by this country in past years for the protection of the frontier of
1454
Egypt, and recently for the reconquest of the Soudan, for which amounts it is now proposed to recoup the British Treasury by throwing upon Egypt the whole cost of the administration of our joint possessions in the Soudan; and whether in consideration of the fact that Egypt is to pay the whole of the deficit, the Egyptian Government will be allowed any effective voice in the control of the expenditure?
MR. BRODRICK: There will be no objection to giving the Return asked for if the honourable Member will move for it. It would be impossible under the circumstances of the Soudan to control the Administration either from Cairo or London, but the expenditure will be carefully reviewed by those responsible for the Egyptian Budget.

THE MAHDI'S TOMB.
MR. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to contradict the stories generally current to the effect that, after the capture of the city of Omdurman, the body of the Mahdi was taken from its grave, mutilated, and thrown into the Nile?
ME. BRODRICK: I understand that the body of the Mahdi was taken from its grave and thrown into the Nile. It was held by the Sirdar that the superstitious reverence which attached to the Mahdi's memory might cause a recrudescence of troubles in the Soudan, which, in view of the history of the past 16 years, it was necessary to take exceptional measures to avoid.
MR. W. REDMOND: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman what has been done with the remains?
MR. BRODRICK: Thrown into the Nile.
MR. MACNEILL: To feed the fishes.
MR. W. REDMOND: May I ask whether in a war with a civilised Power such a gross outrage would be permitted?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
[No Reply.]

THE GRANT TO LORD KITCHENER.
MR. W. REDMOND: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury a Question for the convenience of the Irish Members? At what date will the Bill for giving Lord Kitchener £30,000 be introduced?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUB,): I am afraid I cannot give an answer to the Question at present. As the honourable Gentleman knows, I rather hoped to begin the ordinary legislative work of the' Session to-day. That hope has been disappointed, and the ordinary work cannot now begin until Thursday. If the honourable Gentleman will ask the Question on Thursday I will endeavour to answer him.
MR. W. REDMOND: I will ask the Question again on Thursday, and I beg to give notice that the Irish Members will oppose the Bill on the ground of the outrageous desecration of the Mahdi's tomb.

THE "KOWSHING."
SIR MARK STEWART: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if anything satisfactory has resulted from the negotiations between Her Majesty's Minister at Pekin and the Chinese Government for the loss of valuable British lives in the "Kowshing" during the China-Japanese war; if these proceedings are still proceeding; and if he will inform the House the reason for this prolonged delay in settling the compensation?
MR. BRODRICK: This question is still under discussion with the Chinese Government, who, in their last communication, stated that, after full and careful consideration, they were unable to see how they could fairly be called upon to pay compensation in the circumstances. The Chinese Minister was informed, in reply, on the 21st November, that it was impossible for Her Majesty's Government to abandon the
1456
claim which they had advanced on behalf of the owners of the "Kowshinsr," but that they were willing to renew the offer they had already made, that the question should be referred to arbitration. Sufficient time has hardly elapsed to allow of the receipt of a reply by mail from the Chinese Government to this communication.

LOUISBURGH SCHOOLS.
DR. ROBERT AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the teachers of the local association at Louisburgh, West Mayo, have repeatedly asked the National Board of Education during the past 10 years to send all parcels of requisites carriage paid to Louisburgh, for which purpose the Treasury gave a grant about two years ago; why, as Louisburgh is in the list of free places in the latest edition of the requisition form, the teachers are still compelled to send to Westport for parcels addressed to them, although some of them live 20 miles from Westport, the nearest railway station; and whether he will remedy this grievance, and will the teachers be recouped for the money paid to carriers of such parcels during the past two years?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Commissioners undertake to deliver, through their carriers, free at Louisburgh, packages of school requisites for National Schools when a request to that effect is made on the particular form applying for the requisites. Several packages have been so sent. In any case, where a request was made to have the goods delivered free at Louisburgh, and it has not been complied with, the charge from Westport to Louisburgh will be refunded on application to the office of the Commissioners.

LONDONDERRY LUNATIC ASYLUM.
MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether an English building surveyor has been nominated to take out the quantities for the Londonderry Lunatic

1457
Asylum, for which drawings are now being prepared; what is the contemplated expenditure on the building; and if such surveyor has been so nominated, how long has he been resident and practising in Ireland as a building surveyor on his own account, and what time in any public department or private office?
MR. HANBURY: The surveyor who has been appointed is an, Englishman by birth, but practises in Ireland. The anticipated expenditure on the asylum building is £110,000. Mr. Sandall has been resident and practising in Ireland for nine years, three years on his own account and six years in the Royal Engineers' Department. The contracts come under the Board of Control and not the Board of Works, and the Treasury, therefore, is not responsible.
MR. MACNEILL: Will the right honourable Gentleman see that the stone for this building is obtained from the Donegal quarries?
[No Reply.]

FLANNEN ISLANDS LIGHTHOUSE.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state what progress has been made with the construction of the lighthouse on the Flannen Islands; and, will he say whether there is any prospect of the work being completed before the end of the year?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (for Mr. RITCHIE): My right honourable Friend is informed by the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses that the tower of Flannen Islands lighthouse and the shore dwellings have been completed, and that the construction of the lantern and lighting apparatus is being proceeded with. It is doubtful, however, whether the light can be completed before the end of the year. There is still much work to be done upon the rock, the execution of which very much depends upon the weather.

IRISH NATIONAL ASSISTANT TEACHERS.
MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has knowledge of the resolution passed on 11th instant by the Central Executive of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation respecting the grievances of assistant teachers in Irish national schools; and, whether any steps have been taken by the Commissioners of National Education to remedy these grievances, in view of the fact that the responsibility of doing so^ was cast upon that Board by the Chief Secretary last year; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay in dealing with the grievances of these public servants?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have seen a copy of the resolution mentioned in the first paragraph. The Commissioners state that, as the position of an assistant teacher involves less responsibility than that of a principal teacher, they do not consider it desirable that an assistant should have a salary equal to that of a principal. The Commissioners have not made any representations in favour of the salaries of assistant teachers; any such representations, if made, will, of course, receive the consideration of the Irish Government, though, in saying this, I must not be understood as expressing any opinion on the merits of such a proposal. The second paragraph of the Question does not correctly represent what I stated on the occasion referred to. All that I said was that I cannot exercise any authority over the Commissioners of National Education, and that the initiative in Administrative matters rests with them.

ENNIS ASYLUM.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the retiring resident superintendent of the Ennis Asylum has undertaken to act till his successor is appointed; and if, under these circumstances, the Government will leave the question of a fresh appointment till the Clare County Council is elected.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am in communication with the Lord Lieutenant, with whom the appointment rests. I hope to be able to give an answer to the honourable Member's question in a day or two.

SOLICITORS' CERTIFICATES.
MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in the forthcoming Budget, he will advise the discontinuance of collection of licence in certificates of solicitors in Ireland, and if any reason exists why this impost on a learned profession is continued when no similar tax is imposed on the barrister, medical, engineering, or any other profession?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The stamp duty on solicitors' annual certificates is not confined to Ireland, but is payable by every person practising as a solicitor or law agent, or as a notary public, in any part of the United Kingdom. I believe that there is no desire on the part of the profession generally for a discontinuance of the duty, and I cannot hold out any prospect of its repeal.

PEERS AND ELECTIONS.
MR. DALY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the Duke of Abercorn and the Marquis of Hamilton sent letters and telegrams to meetings urging the election of Mr. Herdman, Unionist candidate for the city of Londonderry; and that the telegrams and letters referred to were sent after the issue of the writ; and, what steps does he propose to take to prevent Peers in Ireland from interfering in the election of Members of Parliament?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have nothing to add to the observations I have made in a case similar to the one the honourable Gentleman has brought before me.

CRETE.
MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether differences have arisen between Prince George of Crete and Colonel Chermside; whether Colonel Chermside is subject to the authority of Prince George; and whether the Government have considered the desirability of withdrawing Colonel Chermside from Candia?
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether Sir Herbert Chermside is not thoroughly acquainted with Crete and its people, and trusted by the Cretans of both creeds; whether the Moslem population who have been driven from their homes and ruined do not regard Sir Herbert Chermside as their chief security for justice; whether—
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the Question.
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: The last part of the honourable Member's Question on the Paper distinctly refers to Sir Herbert Chermside's position.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member's Question was an argument upon the Question of the honourable Member for East Mayo.
MR. BRODRICK: There are no differences between Prince George and Sir Herbert Chermside. Sir Herbert Chermside is responsible to Prince George as High Commissioner for the good government of the province of Candia, communicates constantly with Prince George on the subject, and acts under his Royal Highness's orders. Her Majesty's Government believe that it is desirable that Sir H. Chermside should remain in charge of the district for a few months until Prince George can take over the administration. I may add that I believe that Sir H. Chermside has earned, and deservedly commands, the confidence alike of the Mussulman and Christian population in Crete.

CONGESTED HEADLANDS IN IRELAND.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of steamers which

1461
ply along the coasts of Donegal, Mayo, and Galway which receive subsidies from the Congested Districts Board, and the annual amount of those subsidies; and, considering the necessity for improving the means of communication amongst the congested headlands of Cork and Kerry, and the failure of the Congested Districts Board to grant subsidies to steamers on the Cork and Kerry Coasts, whether the Congested Districts Board would help to place a large steamer plying in Bantry Bay, and calling at Garnish, Castletown, Berehaven, Adrigole, and Glengarriff, in order to develop the fishing and agricultural industries and the tourist traffic?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: At present the Congested Districts Board are subsidising two steamer services on the coast of the congested districts, namely, the Donegal Steamship Company, of Derry, for the coast of Donegal, from Derry to Donegal, calling at 11 ports. This company receives £600 a year for a period of three years, from the 1st July last, subject to certain conditions, and they have two steamers on the service. The Galway Bay Steamboat Company, of Galway, receives £700 a year, for 10 years, from 1st February 1892, for a regular service, three times a week, from Galway to the Aran Islands. Any representations that may be made to the Congested Districts Board in favour of the establishment of a steamer service in Bantry Bay will be considered by that Board in due course.

POSTAGE ON PERIODICALS.
MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether, in view of the growing dissatisfaction owing to the unequal rates of postage on penny periodicals, such as "People's Friend" and "Home Words," an important class of paper mostly read by the poorer classes, compared with the favourable postage rates on journals such as the "Graphic" and the "Field," whose circulation is almost entirely confined to the classes least in need of such favoured treatment, the Government can see its way to propose
1462
a change from this difference of postage rate, to be brought about by a more correct definition of the word "newspaper" in the Post Office regulations.
MR. HANBURY: The "People's Friend" and "Home Words" do not conform to the definition of a newspaper laid down by the Post Office Act, 1870, and cannot, therefore, be sent by post as newspapers. Copies which have been obtained for inspection do not exceed two ounces in weight, and remain within that weight even if a light wrapper be added. So long, therefore, as paper and wrapper are kept within the two ounce limit they can already be sent for a postage of a halfpenny by the ordinary book-post. The "Graphic" and the "Field" comply with the requirements of the Act, and pass through the post as newspapers. The Postmaster-General does not see his way to propose any change such as the honourable Member suggests.

AUSTRALIAN FEDERATION.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state to the House the present position of the federation question in Australia, and detail the further steps that will have to be taken before federation can be brought to completion?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (for Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN): We have no official information except that the recent Conference of Premiers arrived at a satisfactory agreement on the disputed points in the Federation Bill. It appears from Press telegrams that the Premier of New South Wales has decided to summon Parliament shortly to consider a Bill for submitting the amended Measure to a referendum in the Colony, when a simple majority will decide. If the decision of the people of New South Wales is in favour of the Measure, it will then be submitted by referendum to the voters in each of the other Colonies. When it has been accepted by the other Colonies it will be submitted to the Imperial Parliament for enactment. The enabling Acts of the various Colonies

1463
empowered any three of them, to go on with Federation, the Western Australian Act stipulating that New South Wales shall be one.

ANTICOSTI.
MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the island of Anticosti, occupying an important strategical position at the gateway of Canada, has passed entirely into the possession of a foreign gentleman, who has engaged in an eviction campaign against the previous occupiers; whether there is any Government Resident or duly appointed representative of the authority of the Dominion on the spot; and whether he can state the substance of the most recent report he has received as to the condition of affairs on the island.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (for Mr. CHAMBERLAIN): The island of Anticosti, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, was purchased by a Frenchman, M. Monier, in 1895, from the liquidator of the late Anticosti Company. I have no official information as to the alleged proceedings to evict previous inhabitants. The island forms part of the Province of Quebec, and there is no Agent of the Dominion Government upon it. A report on the state of affairs in the island was asked for from the Governor-General last year, but has not yet been received.

NEW BILLS.

  METROPOLITAN STREETS ACT.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask the leave of the House to introduce a Bill to amend the Metropolitan Streets Act, 1867. The object of the Bill is to give the police increased powers to deal with the congested street traffic in London, and it proposes to do this by amending Section 11 of the Act of 1867, which I have named, so as to enable the police to make regulations prescribing the routes to be taken by omnibuses and other vehicles, —e.g., prohibiting certain lines of omnibuses from using certain streets. The Bill also proposes to amend both Sec-
  1464
  tion 11 and Section 14 of the Act of 1867 by abolishing the "special limits" of the Act and making the sections applicable to the whole metropolis. It is a very simple Bill, which I hope the House will be disposed to accept.
  MR. THOMAS LOUGH: I think the drivers of hansom cabs in London will be greatly disappointed with this Bill, for they expected that when the Home Secretary attempted to legislate upon this question he would do something to ameliorate the hard conditions under which they have been working since this new order was issued by the police. The right honourable Gentleman seems to be asking for powers to persecute the omnibus drivers. ["No, no."]
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: There will be no persecution.
  MR. LOUGH: Well, perhaps that is too strong a word, and I will say powers to "harass" the omnibuses. In one point in particular a great deal of disappointment will be felt. The right honourable Gentleman's predecessor in office showed a good deal of sympathy with these men, and I am sorry that the present Government have broken away from the policy of their predecessors in this respect. Surely, if a new Bill is to be brought in, there should be a provision by which the railway companies would be compelled to allow their yards to be used by all hansom cab drivers, for the relief of "streets in this respect. I think the Bill is very disappointing, and the drivers of cabs will think that some Amendment should be introduced, which I hope the right honourable Gentleman will consider favourably.
  Leave was given to introduce the Bill.

METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): The Bill which I ask leave of the House to introduce is one to enable and require the metropolitan water companies to supply each other with water in cases of emer-

1465
gency. The object of this Bill is to prevent any recurrence of the curtailment of the water supply of the metropolis, which inflicted so much inconvenience, in some cases almost amounting to suffering, on many of the poor inhabitants of London during the drought and excessive heat which prevailed last summer. London was supplied by eight different water companies, and during the drought of last summer we were confronted with this curious and most unfortunate anomaly, that while the district supplied by the East London Water Company was deprived of its constant supply—and a great number of the inhabitants, especially the poorer class, not being provided with cisterns, were in consequence suffering intolerable inconvenience, and in some cases severe hardship and annoyance—in other districts of London there was water enough and to spare; in fact, there is no doubt that if there had been adequate means of distribution, and if there had been communication between the mains and the works of the different companies, so as to enable the surplus water of one company to supply the deficiencies of the other, there would have been no difficulty, no trouble, and no curtailment of the supply of water in the East London district at all. That statement honourable Members will find borne out by the report of the Royal Commission, and that, in spite of a deficient rainfall in the valley of the Thames and of the Lea, which are the present sources of supply, and the consequent drought, which is absolutely without precedent for the past 86 years. Well, Sir, if this can be avoided in the future, the obvious way to prevent a recurrence of this state of things is by providing for inter-communication between these different water companies, and this it is proposed to accomplish as follows: In the first place, the Bill requires the different companies, upon the direction of the Local Government Board, to submit plans and construct such works as, in the opinion of the Board, may be necessary for the purpose; and, secondly, in the case of an emergency, such as that which arose in the East of London last year, then the different companies are to supply it
"at a reasonable cost, and to such extent and during such period as the Board may direct, such water as may be required for the
1466
need of another Metropolitan Water Company, and may be available, after satisfying the requirements of their own districts."
The Bill further provides that the cost of construction is to be borne by the several companies, according to their respective water rentals, and the terms upon which the water is to be supplied are to be settled, in default of agreement, by arbitration. There are certain statutory impediments which at present exist to the construction of works and the supplying of water by any company beyond the confines of their own district which are removed by the Bill. Powers are given to the Local Government Board to make orders, for the purposes of the Bill, for fixing the times within which schemes are to be submitted and works are to be constructed, and other matters of that kind. The recommendation of the Royal Commission as to borrowing powers, and likewise as to the provisions in case of purchase of the undertakings of the companies at any time within seven years after the passing of the Bill, are embodied in the Measure proposed. That is all that I think is necessary for me to say with regard to this Measure upon the present occasion. There are other Bills, of which notice has been given, for a similar object before Parliament at the present time. But those are Bills over which Her Majesty's Government have no control whatever, and, in view of the calamity which occurred last year, and of the recommendations made in the report of the Commission appointed by the Government themselves, in view of the fact that the Royal Commission were asked by the Government specially to report on this branch of the subject committed to them as speedily as possible, the Government thought it necessary to give immediate effect to these recommendations of the Commission, or to such of these recommendations as appeared to them to be good, by introducing a Bill of their own. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest possible pleasure in submitting, at the earliest possible moment, the Bill which I have just explained.
MR. SYDNEY C. BUXTON: I do not intend to oppose this Bill now, but we shall have something to say on the Second Reading, when we shall be able to see

1467
whether it is a Bill which the House ought to assent to or not. We have had repeated pledges that the Government were going to deal with the London water question, but this appears to be a Bill of the most futile and microscopic character which any Government pledged to deal with the London water question ought to be ashamed to introduce even as a temporary Measure. We did expect the Government, after what they had said themselves, to deal with this matter on broad and general lines, and in examining this Bill, I shall have to see whether it is likely to affect the question of future authority, or to increase the purchase-price of the water company. We shall oppose, I need hardly say, no small Measure which may be just and necessary to make the connection of any mains between the East London Water Company and other companies, with a view to preventing the water famine; but we shall have to oppose this Bill, or amend it, if it is likely to prejudice the position of the London ratepayer or the London consumer. The Bill of last Session has not produced any more water nor given any redress to the unfortunate ratepayer and the consumer, and it has been, as far as we can judge, an entire failure. We have had a serious famine since that Bill was introduced, and we have not obtained any redress. No attempt has been made under that Act to obtain redress, because every local body and every individual knew that it would be a perfectly futile attempt, and would be merely throwing good money after bad, and that the Bill was a pure farce. I am afraid this Bill is likely, as far as the East London Water Company is concerned, to be the same as the Bill of the right honourable Gentleman of last Session. We had hoped that during this Session we should have had an ample opportunity of dealing with this great principle and of discussing the best method of carrying it out. The right honourable Gentleman will not prevent the proper discussion of these matters by the appointment of the Royal Commission which, two years ago, he said he believed and hoped would report immediately, and which seems still likely to continue to sit fop some indefinite time. The only conclusion they have come to is a conclusion which required no Royal Commission to arrive at, namely, that the mains of the different companies
1468
should be properly connected. We shall have to raise the question of authority, of purchase, of future supply, and of communication, and I will only say that so far as this particular Bill is concerned, if it is a small Measure, we shall not oppose it; but if it is a Measure which prejudices the question, I, for one, shall take the responsibility of trying to get it rejected by the House.
Leave to introduce the Bill was given.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I beg to ask leave to introduce a Bill to provide for improving and extending the procedure for obtaining Parliamentary powers by way of Provisional Orders in matters relating to Scotland. Sir, as honourable Members are aware, there have been many previous attempts to legislate in this direction, the object being chiefly to provide for a local inquiry with the cheapness, expedition, and satisfaction which, a local inquiry would give, and, at the same time, to retain the effective control of Parliament. Honourable Members will remember that the Bill of the Government of last year signalised a new departure, because it attempted to solve the problem by means of introducing an extended Provisional Order system, at the same time recognising that certain subjects ought to be kept within the domain of private Bills, and granting means by which such subjects should be so decided. Now that Bill was brought in late in the Session, and committed to a Select Committee. In the report of that Committee, Mr. Speaker, you will find practical unanimity upon the question of the Provisional Order system being a practical and a better solution than the private Bill system. Accordingly the present Bill is a repetition of the Bill of last year upon that point. The real difficulty furnished by the report was the question of the constitution of the Committee. Many honourable Members were of the opinion, and expressed that opinion, that the best means would be to leave the inquiry under the Provisional Order to a tribunal

1469
composed of Members of Parliament. But there were very grave difficulties in the way of that proposal, especially in view of the arguments adduced by the two Chairmen of Committees as to the practical impossibility of getting a sufficient number of Members to serve. I need scarcely point out that that difficulty would be infinitely increased if the system were extended to other portions of the United Kingdom. Now, the Government feel quite certain that any legislation that they propose on this subject for the acceptance of the House must be capable of extension to other parts of the United Kingdom. I believe that in saying that I have the assent of honourable Members who represent here Irish and Welsh constituencies, although I do not think this is a question of nationality, but a question of convenience. Now the Bill of the Government of last year provided for the selection of a tribunal by the somewhat cumbrous and elaborate method of electing electors who were afterwards to elect certain other persons. In the Bill of this year we have taken the precaution to sweep away all that cumbrous machinery, and we have left the selection of persons to the two Chairmen of Committees of the two Houses, acting jointly with the Secretary for Scotland. At the same time we have given an indication in the Bill that, although the persons selected are not necessarily to be Members of this House or of the House of Lords, yet Members of either House are not to be ineligible if there are Members willing to give their services. The Bill of last year is reproduced, except in this one particular. This Bill practically, except in minor particulars, is really the Bill as it left the hands of the Select Committee, with those changes which I have indicated. I have only to ask the good offices of the House in favour of this proposal. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Stirling Burghs and the honourable Member for East Fife have both spoken during the Recess in terms decidedly friendly to the legislation contained in this Bill. The right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has again given us words of encouragement for this legislation. He said in his speech the first time we heard him this Session that there were certain rocks ahead, and that I knew what they were,
1470
and if they could be either avoided or blown up then the Measure would be safe. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will find that we have proceeded rather on the lines of pilotage than of dynamite. The Bill, as it is, is the result of much experience, and I hope that in this Session it may appear upon the Statute Book of this realm.
SIR HENRY CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right honourable Gentleman in his speech has made a pointed reference to me. I am not surprised at that, because this is a subject we have had before us so often in so many different forms that an old Member like me cannot help taking a deep interest in it. The right honourable Gentleman, in his new scheme, has certainly shown a great disposition to meet the objections that were made to the previous project. And while I am anxious not to express too sanguine a hope of what may happen when we see the actual provisions of the Bill, I think, from what the right honourable Gentleman has said, that he may possibly have hit upon a method of meeting what is desired in this case better than those which were adopted before. At all events, he may be sure that there will be every desire on the part of those on this side of the House to take a favourable view of the Measure if we can, and, if possible, to pass it into law.
Leave to introduce the Bill was given.
The three Bills were formally introduced, and read a first time.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.

    TENTH DAY.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment [17th February] proposed to Main Question [7th February], "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as followeth:—
    "Most Gracious Majesty,—
    "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United

    1471
    Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Captain Bagot.)

DISTRESS IN THE WEST OF IRELAND.
And which Amendment was, at the end of the Question, to add the words—
"And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that the frequent recurrence of severe distress in certain districts of Ireland is the source of much suffering to the population of these localities, and calls for the speedy application of an efficient remedy for this social misery and privation by the introduction of legislation during the present Session for the enlargement of holdings, and the carrying out of feasible schemes of migration, in accordance with a resolution passed by the Congested Districts Board of Ireland in 1895, asking for compulsory powers to acquire suitable lands with which to provide increased opportunities of employment for the victims of this chronic distress."—(Mr. Davitt.)
MR. JOHN DILLONresuming his speech: Mr. Speaker, apart from the extremely offensive tone of the Chief Secretary's speech, my great objection to that speech is based upon the fact that, at least in great part, it consisted of elaborate arguments against the enlargement of holdings and migration as a remedy for the wretchedness of the population of the west of Ireland. Now, Mr. Speaker, in order to show the effect which was created on the public mind by the tone of the right honourable Gentleman's speech, I take the following extract from an article in "The Times" newspaper, which was published on Saturday, and which was written very close upon the Chief Secretary's announcement. Now, what does "The Times" say? It says:—
"The chronic distress on the western coasts is put forward as a pretext for the compulsory acquisition by the State of the grazing lands in order to divide them among small farms for the surplus population. That is an old quack remedy, and it is now clear to sensible men that to adopt it would be 'to feed the dog with his own tail.' But, as the Chief Secretary showed—thereby arousing the indignation of Mr. Dillon—the advocates of this policy have been endeavouring to give effect to it by coercive methods without waiting for the action of the State or the amendment of the law."
Unquestionably, the impression given to the general public by the speech of the Chief Secretary is that, after studying
1472
the subject, he has come to the conclusion that the remedy for the chronic misery of the congested districts in the west of Ireland is not to be mainly sought for in the direction either of the enlargement of the holdings or in migration schemes. Now, Sir, I venture to say that this is not the spirit in which this problem ought to be approached, because I hope to show—in the progress of time—and I may add that the agitation of the people, which has been so violently denounced in this House, has already convinced most of those who were connected with the Congested Districts Board, and all those who take an interest in the problem outside—that not only is the proper remedy for the misery of these people to be sought for in the enlargement of their holdings, either by adding to their present holdings, or by migration, but that that remedy is the necessary preliminary to any other remedial Measure. Now, I shall show presently, I think, that the proposals made by the Chief Secretary at the conclusion of his speech are utterly inadequate to apply, or upon which to base, any real attempt to apply a radical and effective remedy to this miserable condition of things. I wish, first of all, to deal for a few moments with one or two other points in the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary's speech. He pointed out, and quite truly pointed out, that, as regards East Mayo and other congested districts, there was not land enough in the immediate vicinity of their present holdings available for the enlargement of those holdings even if they possessed compulsory powers to purchase the land. He then proceeded to say that, as regards migration, it was an extremely difficult remedy, and he intimated that that was a remedy from which very little could be hoped for.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I said it was no immediate remedy.
MR. DILLON: Outside all this, says the right honourable Gentleman, there exists the greatest possible reluctance on the part of the people to leave the districts in which they lived, and in which their forefathers lived. Sir, I am perfectly well aware that that difficulty does exist, but is it not preposterous for a man in the position of the Chief Secre-

1473
tary to point to that as an insuperable difficulty, or as one that ought to stand in the way of such a remedy. When we recall what has been the history of the Irish people during the last 50 or 100 years, and remember that the inhabitants have crossed the Atlantic in such enormous numbers, and emigrated to other parts of the world, are we to be told that the difficulty of migrating some 30 or 40 miles in the neighbourhood in which they live is an insuperable obstacle to this remedy? Surely there would be less unwillingness on the part of the people to go from one part of the country to another, than for them to cross the Atlantic or go to Australia. The Chief Secretary has put forward this difficulty as an answer to our demand for the migration remedy. This recalls to my mind how easily that difficulty was passed over when, in past days, this House was asked to adopt measures to facilitate the people of Ireland crossing the Atlantic. We never heard this argument when the Government were passing schemes for shipping the Irish people across the Atlantic from the districts in which they had lived so long. But, Sir, the Chief Secretary went on to draw attention to the case mentioned on page 21 of the 7th Report of the Congested Districts Board, and I understood him to say that this was the first instance in which the policy of migration had been tried. I believe that is true according to all these reports, for I do not remember any previous case of migration. Now let me draw the attention of the House to this particular case. In this instance, migration was tried in the case of two families out of 22 in number, who were taken from one of the islands (Mason Island, on the west coast of Galway) and transferred to an estate called Thomson's Estate, which was on the mainland. The report says that these two families supported themselves chiefly by selling kelp and fish. Well, as I said before, two of these families were transferred from this island to the mainland, and the report says that these two families got farms, and that when they were last heard of they expressed themselves satisfied. That is the first occasion, says the Chief Secretary, on which the policy of migration was tried, and I venture to say that it could not have been tried more unfavourably than by taking these men off
1474
an island where they had grown accustomed to their surroundings, and putting them on the mainland to which they were unaccustomed. They were far more likely to fail and be unwilling to leave their island when transferred among the strangers of the community on the mainland. The first experiment was tried under most unfavourable circumstances, and yet, according to the report of the Chief Secretary, it has proved satisfactory. But, Sir, what is there in that first effort, so far as our information goes, to discredit us in carrying out our larger policy of migration? On the contrary, that first experiment, for what it is worth—and it is a small matter—goes altogether in favour of the migration policy as likely to be the most successful. Now, Sir, I turn for a moment to the extraordinary speech delivered by that solitary politician who is a most earnest supporter of the Unionist cause, I allude to the right honourable Gentleman the Member for South Dublin. His whole speech from beginning to end was a powerful argument against the policy of migration and the enlargement of the holdings as a primary remedy for this distress. He argued—and that is the reason why I feel it my duty to dwell upon this speech—as the authority on which he based his speech that he had made of the subject a particular study, and he has, of course, been in the position to devote particular attention to it, having been a member of the Congested Districts Board from its foundation. But although I was astounded to hear the right honourable Gentleman argue against migration and the enlargement of holdings, he went a step further, and stated his deliberate conviction, based upon his own great experience of the population of Ireland, that he did not think a system of tenant proprietors was desirable. He stated that his experience had lead him to the conviction that the tenant proprietors of other countries had a most dreadful struggle for existence, although he did not say that he was absolutely converted to the policy of the present Government, which they had borrowed from the Land League, of making the peasant proprietors the owners. The right honourable Gentleman said that a policy of peasant proprietorship in Ireland was a policy fraught with disaster, and fraught with

1475
future misery to the Irish people. He further stated that if this year, or within the next few years, every occupier in the congested districts were provided with a comfortable farm of 15 acres at a reasonable price, within 15 years the congestion would be worse than ever. Sir, a more monstrous and grotesque proposition was never enunciated in this House, because if that be true, or had the slightest foundation in fact, then I say that the whole policy of the Government is a policy of madness, and they are plunging the Irish people into a condition of misery greater than anything which they have experienced before. Then he went on to say—and this opinion, to me, had a very sinister sound, and it evoked in my mind, and, I venture to say, the minds of my colleagues sitting round me, most sinister recollections—that he had had experience of people in the United States and other foreign lands, and he had come to the conclusion that the instincts of the Irish people were rather pastoral than agricultural. That reminds me of the time when a Lord Lieutenant came down to a part of Ireland, and drank to the successful mother of flocks and herds, and rejoiced at the disappearance of the people. Well, I do not agree with the right honourable Gentleman in that, because I think the Irish people have been forced into pastoral occupations, and the operation of forcing them has been one of the most unmitigated curses that ever fell upon Ireland. I believe that the Irish people have the passion for agriculture and the holding of small farms; but it is because they have bitter experiences in Ireland of the treatment they received on the land that they naturally incline to those new countries, and to take what they consider to be fairer rights. So much for the opening part of the speech of the honourable Member for South Dublin. "King Charles' head" then appeared upon the scene. Then the right honourable Gentleman told us what agricultural co-operation and creameries had done, and his remarks were received with universal laughter from the Irish Benches, and he got somewhat irritated. Now, I have no objection either to co-operation or to these creameries, and I never had any; nor shall I have any objection to
1476
them so long as the right honourable Gentleman does not use his co-operative societies as a political engine; but when I found that this movement was brought before the Fry Commission as an argument against the reduction of rents, then, I say, the co-operative system is being used for an illicit purpose. Witness after witness before that Commission said, "You can get your seeds through Mr. Plunkett's Society for half the price. If the price has gone down, and you can get all the things that are necessary at half the price, then rents ought to go up instead of going down." It is only in that way that I object to a co-operative society being used, as it was used in this House on Friday, as an argument against the enlargement of holdings. I put this question to the right honourable Gentleman: If he were planted on three acres of bog, and paid 10s. an acre rent for it, how could he co-operate, unless the Co-operative Society is for the purpose of showing who would starve the soonest?
MR. PLUNKETT: The honourable Gentleman puts a question to me. I may say that I never argued against either the enlargement of holdings or migration in a single word I used. I said that, in order to make them successful, it is absolutely necessary to improve the farming industry, and that the only way of improving that industry is to adopt those methods which have been adopted elsewhere.
MR. DILLON: I do not object to the methods or improvements in the skill by which the people may improve their holdings, but the right honourable Gentleman is somewhat singular in his method of expressing his views, because he conveyed to me, and to other Members on this side, that he was not in favour of enlarging the holdings—at all events, until he had succeeded in morally elevating the people through the operation of the Co-operative Society. Now, I object to the sequence of the remedies. I say that, first of all, you must give the people a holding on which they can live, and that is the first step. Then, by all means, give them your creameries, technical instruction, and your co-operative societies for what they are worth. Let the co-operative societies spread, and let more creameries

1477
be built, but, first of all, lay a sure foundation and a safe foundation by giving the people holdings upon which they can live at a reasonable and fair price. If you begin by applying these other remedies, which I think are greatly over rated, and neglect the really important remedy of the enlargement of the holdings, then I say you will be beginning at the wrong end, and anything you do in the way of technical instruction and the like will simply result in adding to the rents of the landlords, or giving them a better chance of getting their rents. The only other ground on which I object to the co-operative system is the mere risk of using it as a political weapon. I charge the right honourable Gentleman now, frankly, with using this condition of the Congested Districts Board and the Co-operative Society as a political instrument. I remember well the right honourable Gentleman when, in 1890, fresh from his American experiences, he called upon me and told me that he was no politician, and that he had no interest in politics. He told me that his whole interest was in economic questions. I am betraying nothing of a confidential nature by making these statements, because he said it in public, and it aroused my sympathy and interest very much. Well, for two or three years the right honour able Gentleman pursued that course, and he was placed on the Congested Districts Board as a non-politician. When I asked the First Lord of the Treasury, who was then the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether he considered it a right thing that a Member of this House should have a seat on the Congested Districts Board as a non-politician, active Unionist politician, he replied that if he had known that he intended to seek a seat in this House, he very much doubted whether he should have made that appointment on that Board. When I see the right honourable Gentleman become not only a bitter Unionist politician—
MR. PLUNKETT: No, no.
MR. DILLON: The right honourable Gentleman has two voices; he is sometimes all agreeability, and sometimes a politician.
MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: He is a very mild Unionist politician if he is one.
MR. DILLON: He may be mild in the eyes of the honourable Member for South Belfast. It was said in the Debate the other day that there are directors and directors, and I suppose I may say there are Unionist politicians and Unionist politicians, and I am rather afraid he is a more dangerous Unionist politician than the honourable Member for South Belfast. But, from my point of view, he is a bitter Unionist politician, and I hold the view that no Member of this House ought to be a member of the Congested Districts Board, because it gives them an opportunity of distributing privilege and money among the constituencies. But when I see the right honourable Gentleman going to Belfast, as he did the other day, delivering an oration there explaining the object of the Co-operative Society, and for the purpose of disinfecting Irishmen with common sense—I do not know whether he meant that for the honourable Member for South Belfast—I say that it is upon that aspect, and upon that aspect alone, of the Congested Districts Board that I object. The right honourable Gentleman sometimes poses as if he contained in himself alone all the wisdom connected with this whole problem, but I want to remind the right honourable Gentleman, in this very connection, of a very remarkable speech, which I have always regarded as one of the wisest and most instructive that has ever been made on the Co-operative Society as connected with the Congested Districts Board. He will remember the speech very well, because it was made by a very able Irish Bishop in these congested districts—I mean the Most Rev. Dr. Healy, the Bishop of Clonfert. The reason for this speech, the right honourable Gentleman will remember, is this: He was asked by- the right honourable Gentleman, or some of his friends, to come to a meeting at which this programme in connection with the Congested Districts Board was being discussed for the purpose of placing the Co-operative Society, and all those other

1479
societies, before the public. Now, this is what the Bishop said—
"Father Finlay must admit, as an economist, that, in face of foreign competition, the elements of successful agriculture are capital, labour, and technical skill. What do I find in the West, and other parts of the country? I find that the very best lands in the whole country are gone out of cultivation, without capital, labour, and skill and they are at the present time in exactly the same state as in the days of Adam. It cannot be denied that the plains of Roscommon, the plains of Mayo, and the plains of Galway are in that state at this moment. All the best land has gone out of cultivation, inhabited merely by herds and cultivated by graziers, who are breaking up every day in face of foreign competition and unable to pay their debts. I say, therefore, the first element in successful competition in agriculture in Ireland is the sub-dividing of the good lands, and the putting of the people to till the lands that they inherited from their forefathers. I do not propose in doing that to be unjust to any man. If any man, landlord or grazier, is deprived of his lands I will give him their full market value for them. What our friends Mr. Plunkett and Father Finlay are doing in this, they are striving to make the best of the present agricultural economic conditions in the country."
I do not think it would be possible to put the whole circumstances in better or more forcible language—
"They are striving to make the best of the present agricultural economic conditions in the country. For that they deserve all credit. But I would wish them also never to let these other two points disappear from public view. I have heard priests again and again when they were reproached for apparent indifference to the efforts to help the poor people, say, Yes, but they are beginning at the wrong end: they are simply enabling the tenants to pay rents to the landlords, rents that' they can badly afford. Why do they not with equal clearness put forward these things that I have been referring to if they are really anxious for the agricultural prosperity of the country. I have no doubt that that thought is in the minds of a great many priests and a great many people, and there is no doubt at all that there is a good deal in it."
Then the Bishop goes on to say—
"But I want men like him to tell Mr. Balfour and to tell the other leaders of the Unionist Party in England and Ireland that never will there be peace, never will there be happiness and prosperity in the country until this radical cure is effected."
Now what is the radical cure to which the Bishop referred? Why, it is the splitting up of the grazing land of Ros-
1480
common, Galway, and Mayo, and its division into small farms, and he distinctly takes the view which I have endeavoured to impress upon the House now, that the whole scheme of the right honourable Gentleman and the Chief Secretary for Ireland is beginning at the wrong end and trying to make the best of the present economic conditions in the country, which is an impossible and preposterous task, instead of beginning at the right end and altering the economic conditions. Sir, the policy of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for South Dublin and the policy of the Chief Secretary for Ireland might be fairly compared to the policy of a town council or municipal body in this country, who, after having resolved upon some great scheme of improvement to reconstruct an insanitary area, proceeded to spend the money of the ratepayers without first buying out the landlords and securing their improvements against confiscation. If any municipal body did that they would be greatly condemned by every reasonable man. We have a large and comprehensive scheme for this condition of affairs in the West of Ireland, and you might as well pour your money into a sieve as to pursue the present policy, which is useless until you stop the leakage by setting up a real economic condition of affairs upon which all these other remedies can safely rest. That is the view which I take with regard to the speech of the honourable Member for South Dublin. There is one other point that I want to allude to before I turn for a few moments to the remedies which have been proposed by the Chief Secretary, and that is the case which has been made out both by the Chief Secretary and the Member for South Dublin that the agitations which have gone on in the west of Ireland have obstructed the work of enlarging the holdings. Now, Sir, there is in the Seventh Report of the Congested Districts Board, on page 86, some figures showing the progress that has been made by the Board in buying estates and enlarging holdings. In that table I find that up to the month of August, 1896, only three estates had been bought. That is to say, the Board was formed in the

1481
year 1891, so that it was five years after the Board was formed that three estates had been bought, and the first of these estates was purchased in 1893, and the last in 1896, or at the rate of one small estate per annum. The Chief Secretary complained, last year, when he was denouncing us in connection with the Land League, that—
"For some years there has been an agitation in the district against the holders of evicted and grazing farms."
He also quoted some acts of violence which he said had been committed in the month of February last, and in reference to one or two of these acts he used very strong language about the consequences of the agitation. But it is a very remarkable thing that just in that very year when the agitation commenced, in 1896, the speed of the Congested Districts Board in carrying out these reforms began to increase, and therefore the effect of that agitation was to accelerate the work of the Board.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, for the reason that the Act of 1896 enabled them to do so.
MR. DILLON: I am only pointing out the fact, which you cannot get over. Although you may give reasons, it is a thing which is absolutely undeniable in the history of Ireland that until there is an agitation nothing is done, and whether it be by an appeal in this House or a demonstration outside, just in direct proportion to the extent and vigour of the agitation is relief given to us and our condition improved. Since 1896 no less than nine estates have been purchased, and a great number of others are in progress towards that result. I am perfectly convinced that the programme which we have put forward, and which was only taken up by this House after a long delay, will be carried out by the Government in time. I only regret that we have got to travel by the same road that has been travelled by the Land League, and by other agitations before the present time. Now, Sir, this condition in the west of Ireland is no new thing. It has lasted for a great many years. We have had it all through the century, year after year, and I want to know why this question has only been taken up within the last seven or eight
1482
years. It has only been taken up, as everybody knows, because we took it up from these Benches. The people have been so long patient, until at last they started an agitation which has forced the attention of this House and of the country. Now, Sir, I must refer again in this connection to that very remarkable letter which was published in "The Times" in 1893 by the present Secretary to the Local Government Board, because some of the language which he used on that occasion—he was then, of course, in opposition, and therefore spoke with greater freedom—gave such a striking picture of the condition of things which existed in the west of Ireland that it cannot be too often called attention to in this House. Now, this is what the honourable Member for South Tyrone says in a letter published in "The Times" on the 15th of December, 1893—
"The condition of the De Freyne and similar estates in the west of Ireland is simply appalling. The estate is part of a large congested district. The land is mainly cutaway bog, every acre of it cut and reclaimed by the labour and sweat of the tenant. Even were this land of the best quality, and were it held rent free, the 2,000 tenants on the estate could not live. By wages earned abroad, as England is curiously called in these parts, a precarious existence is eked out. In a good year, as this undoubtedly has been, rents are fairly well paid. In bad years, and in that western area they are the rule, instalments only are paid, arrears consequently accumulate, and in due time they become a hopeless mountain of debt. Evictions then take place, and scenes such, as those with which Englishmen now are painfully familiar will inevitably follow. It is a miserable condition of affairs. Will the day ever come when a Government shall be found willing to look these facts in the face, and, instead of passing on, stay and deal with them?"
That letter was written six years ago, and the district to-day is exactly in the same condition as when the honourable Member for South Tyrone described it. Not one single thing has been done to alleviate or improve the condition of those people, and if the spirit of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for South Dublin continues to animate the decisions of the Congested Districts Board we shall have to wait a long time before anything is done. The right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland commenced his speech the other day by indulging in a ferocious

1483
onslaught on the Irish Members. The right honourable Gentleman charged me with never having made any fruitful suggestions for the government of Ireland. Such a charge seems to me preposterous, when, in order to make suggestions that would be fruitful, I must be possessed of some means of putting them into effect. I may, however, remind the House that in December, 1893, in a letter published m the "Manchester Guardian" and the London papers, I made suggestions which I believed would apply an effective remedy to this miserable condition of affairs; but, of course, not the slightest attention was ever paid to them. I do not complain of that, because we are accustomed to it, but I think it is rather hard to be taunted in this House with making no fruitful suggestions, when the fact is I have made many suggestions, which have never been paid the slightest attention to. These are some of the suggestions I have made—
"First, the constitution of a board so formed as to secure the confidence of the people living in the districts to be dealt with. Secondly, the appointment of at least two paid commissioners who could give continuous attention to the work, and a reasonable staff of surveyors. Thirdly, an income of at least £100,000 a year for about 25 years. Fourthly, a power conferred upon the Board to purchase compulsorily from the landlords their interest in all farms situated in the congested districts area, and valued to the poor at under £10 a year, the price of the landlord's interest to be estimated by an impartial tribunal. But I would be willing, for the sake of avoiding bitterness, to give them a fair number of years' purchase, say ten years, of what they can prove to have been their average net annual receipt for the last ten years. Fifthly, power to keep a system of registry of title, quite apart from and far simpler than that generally in use for real estate, so that small holders could dispose of their holdings without the intervention of attorneys, in the same fashion as Ulster tenants now sell their tenant-right. Sixthly, power to the Board to purchase compulsorily grass and waste lands for the purpose of enlarging the holdings of small tenants or of migrating small tenants to new holdings. This work would be simply undoing the horrible clearances by which a good deal of this congestion was created. The total population of the congested districts is 560,000, say 100,000 families, the poor-law valuation being £556,000 a year. This would give a rental, probably, of about £500,000 a year, or an average of £5 a family. (This figure appears to be too high; but I take my figures from the report of the Congested Districts Board.) The net annual receipts of the landlords, calculated as indicated above, would, on a rental of £500,000,
1484
be less than £350,000 a year. Three millions and a half would purchase this at 10 years' purchase, giving to the landlords a good deal more than their property is really worth. The interest payable to the Government on three and a half millions would be £140,000. By this operation the Congested Districts-Board would be placed in a position to reduce by 50 per cent, the nominal rentals of the tenants under their jurisdiction, while retaining the margin between £140,000 due by them to the Government and £250,000, being half the nominal rental of the district, to meet bad debts, the balance to go towards making up the income of the Board. The money for this purpose has already been provided by Parliament under the Purchase Act of 1891; and I may say in this connection that unless some such scheme as I have suggested is put in force, the thirty millions-provided by Parliament by the Act for Irish land purchase, will be all absorbed without-bringing any benefit or relief to the very class of tenants who most required relief, and whose necessities Parliament was most anxious to deal with. For, as the purchase system is at present administered in Ireland, the small western tenants are practically excluded from its operation. Seventhly, the Board, when reducing the rents of the small holders, and thereby conferring a great benefit on them, should be empowered to affix certain conditions to the holdings—(a) no sub-letting or sub-division; (b) no mortgaging. And I see no reason why the American homestead principle should not be introduced, namely, that the house implements of these small farmers should not be seized for any debt contracted after due notice of this provision. Rightly, the Board should also have power, with the consent of the people, to divide into separate holdings all joint holdings and holdings held in rundale, which are pretty numerous throughout these western districts, and are frequently nests of poverty."
Now, Sir, these are comprehensive proposals which I believed would apply an affective remedy to the miserable state of affairs then and still existing; and perhaps the Government, after the tone of the right honourable Gentleman's, speech, will kindly consent to take them into consideration. They are undoubtedly large proposals, which it will take some years—perhaps three, or four, or five—to carry fully into effect, but they are not revolutionary proposals. They do not involve loss or injury to anyone. They propose to place these districts on an economic basis, and I need hardly say that the right honourable Gentleman will have my hearty good wishes in helping to improve the social condition of the people in that part of the country. Now, Sir, I come to the proposals which he announced to the House on Friday night. He first

1485
of all spoke of placing at the disposal of the Congested Districts Board a floating capital of £60,000, which was to be expended at the rate of £20,000 a year, and to be repaid by the tenants. He did not inform us where the capital was to come from or whether it was to be borrowed on a security of the Board and whether interest was to be paid for it.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Of course, taken from the capital of the Congested Districts Board, and interest paid upon it.
MR. DILLON: That is what I was afraid of—that it would be so much of a decrease of the available income of the Board. Now, Sir, the proposal may be good as far as it goes, but I must say—and I am repeating what all the intelligent people outside, as well as inside, the Board say—that you are only tinkering with the question. By proposals such as these you will do little good. You may do a little bit here and there, but not for many years—I might also say generations—will you by such means remove the cause of famine. I appeal to the right honourable Gentleman, in the language of the honourable Member for South Tyrone six years ago, now that we have a strong Government, and a rich Government, to grapple with this question on a broad and radical basis. Sir, I believe that if this question is to be settled in a way that will leave no bad blood behind it, you will be obliged to pay to the landlords and graziers something more than the true market value of their interest. I myself and others who have spoken on this question on the platform of the United Irish League in Mayo have stated that we do not want to take away the property of the landlords without giving them full value for their interests. It is perfectly notorious that the graziers of Connaught are absolutely broken at the present moment, owing to the condition of the trade, and I maintain that I am within the truth when I say that you could buy out the grazing interests of Connaught for less than half of what they would have cost 10 years ago. Therefore, the time is extremely favourable, and I have been told by men who know these graziers that there are large numbers of them
1486
in Mayo who would gladly sell and get out of the trade. I am bound to admit that I think the Government ought to be prepared to lose some money in settling the question. Last year, when it was a question of buying off the opposition of the landlords to the Local Government Bill, you did not hesitate to give them a quarter of a million a year, and a very much smaller sum would set the population of the West on their feet, enabling them to be a self-supporting and self-respecting population. The First Lord of the Treasury, who always approaches this question in a more sympathetic spirit than the present Chief Secretary, has recognised—I have heard him say it over and over again—that the House and the Government owe a duty to these unfortunate people, whose condition, he admits, is not due to any fault of theirs, but to bad administration and bad laws. Therefore, I appeal to the Government on behalf of these people to give over their tinkering and insufficient proposals for abating in some small degree the great evils that exist amongst this population; to recognise their duty to those people, since they will not allow us to deal with this question; and to make one effort worthy of so rich a Government to cut out by the roots the cause of the famine, and at last to elevate the people of the heart of Ireland from the condition of chronic poverty and famine in which they exist.
MAJOR RASCH: Mr. Speaker, having some acquaintance with this district, I should like to ask the sympathetic attention of the Government to the Amendment of the honourable Gentleman which is now before the House. Of course, notwithstanding the speech of the right honourable Gentleman the Irish Secretary, we all know that he has given a considerable amount of time, attention, and care to the question of the congested districts. I, Sir, am not at all in favour of the policy alluded to by the late Irish Secretary; but exceptional duties require, in my mind, exceptional remedies, and as I understand that money is to be spent in the West India Islands to relieve exceptional distress, I fail myself to see why some of it should not be spent here at home. I do not quite myself understand, Sir, how migration and

1487
the enlargement of holdings, suggested by the honourable Member who has just resumed his seat, is likely to relieve this particular distress, because I have always understood from my knowledge of that part of Ireland that the state of the trade of the district depended upon the capital from the English markets; but probably honourable Members opposite know their own position, and the course which the Government should pursue. Of course, I know, as an English agricultural Member, that I have no right to trouble the House with my views on this question, and I only do so because I know myself that this distress is severe and acute, and because I have always remarked that when English Members representing agricultural districts have had to lay their grievances before this House they have always received a sympathetic and a fair hearing from honourable Members opposite who represent rural districts in Ireland.
MR. W. REDMOND: I desire to say one or two words in support of the Amendment of the honourable Member for Mayo, and I have two reasons for saying these few words. In the first place, with some knowledge of what has been going on in Ireland during the autumn, I would not like it to be considered for a moment that I am not in this matter in the most absolute sympathy with the honourable Member for Mayo in support of the Amendment. In some matters I do not always act with him, but I can assure the House that, with regard to the terms of this Amendment, there is, as far as I know, absolutely no difference whatever in Ireland amongst any sections of the Nationalist Party. Well, my second reason for desiring to say a few words is, I confess frankly, the indignation which I felt when I listened to the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. Now the honourable Member for Mayo, who has just resumed his seat, made a comparison between the right honourable Gentleman who is now Chief Secretary and the Leader of the House. I am bound to say that having been in this House for 15 years, and listened to a great many speeches by the present Leader of the Government, I am
1488
forced to the conclusion that he did, upon every occasion such as this, extend to the Irish Members a far more sympathetic hearing, and far greater consideration, than the present right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. What is the question which has been raised by the Amendment of the honourable Member for Mayo? Why, it is a question of the most vital importance to the Irish people. It is a question which goes to the root of all the mischief which from time to time occurs in Ireland. But instead of dealing in a broad and statesmanlike way with all the arguments brought before the House, and which the terms of the Amendment proposed, I must say the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary seemed to be more desirous of raising an angry feeling amongst the Irish Members by sneering at their procedure in Ireland. Now, what could be more offensive? I have no doubt that the right honourable Gentleman had no intention of being so, but what could be more offensive than to deliberately charge Irish Members with making speeches of one type in Ireland and speeches of another type upon the floor of the House of Commons? The right honourable Gentleman made that charge, and I venture to say the quotations which he gave the House of speeches delivered in Ireland did not at all bear out the gravity of the charge which he made. As far as I know— certainly I speak for myself—I should not think that there is a single Irish Member of any section who would be guilty of the meanness of delivering one single sentence one way in Ireland and another single sentence another way on the floor of the House of Commons. As far as I am concerned, if I were not afraid of being called to order for using language which was unparliamentary, I would use quite as strong language as ever I used in Ireland upon the floor of the House of Commons. Now, Mr. Speaker, the right honourable Gentleman the Member for South Dublin (Mr. Plunkett) has taken part in this Debate, as have also two English Members, the honourable Member for Derby (Mr. Drage) and one of the Members for Essex, the honourable Gentleman who has just resumed his seat; and, in passing, I may say that Irish Members regard with great satisfaction the interest taken

1489
in this matter by English Members. Having read the speech of the honourable Member for Derby in "The Times," although I differ with a great many of the conclusions, I must say that I do feel highly gratified, as several other Irish Members must have done, to find that he took the trouble to go to Ireland to be able on the spot to study those matters of which we have so frequently cause to complain in the House. Now, I find myself in a somewhat peculiar position in this Debate, and for this reason: I, like most of the Nationalist Members, and also the honourable Baronet the Member for Kerry (Sir Thomas Es-monde), are members of the committee of the Irish agricultural organisation of which the Member for South Dublin is president and principal worker. I heard the honourable Member for Mayo say that this movement in Ireland has been used by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for South Dublin for political ends. Well, I am bound to say that as far as my observation goes the movement has not been used for political ends. If I found myself convinced that this were the case I would not remain for a single day on the committee of the organisation, and when I find myself in company upon that committee with the honourable Baronet the Member for Kerry, who is a strong Nationalist, I feel that I am justified in believing that the movement has not been used for the purpose of promoting the Unionist policy in Ireland. However, I may not have the information in the possession of the honourable Member for Mayo. I must however, say I did regard it as a startling assertion, and an assertion which I, up to the present time, have no means of seeing any truth in. I understood that the object of the organisation of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for South Dublin was by means of education to raise the standard of agriculture in Ireland by putting before the agriculturists of the country the examples which are to be found on the Continent, and by teaching the Irish people the most scientific way of working the land. Well, that is the object, as I understand it, of the organisation, an object with which nobody can possibly find fault. But I am bound to say that I see absolutely nothing in that inconsistent with a strong support of the Amendment which is before the House. No doubt
1490
technical training in agriculture may be most important. No doubt it is desirable that the people should have examples shown to them from Continental countries which adopt the best possible methods of working the land. But what is the good of educating people in the methods of agriculture—what is the use of giving them scientific training, if you do not take steps to give them what is the most necessary and essential thing of all—that is, sufficient land upon which to work, and upon which to exercise the education you propose to give them? The honourable Gentleman's Amendment calls for—
"the speedy application of an efficient remedy for this social misery and privation, by the introduction of legislation during the present Session for the enlargement of holdings, and the carrying out of feasible schemes of migration."
The honourable Gentleman the Member for Mayo has charged the right honourable Gentleman the Member for South Dublin with being opposed to the principle of the enlargement of holdings, and with being opposed to the principle of migration carried out in a peaceable and reasonable manner. If he is opposed to these two propositions, I certainly am not with him, because I believe that at the root of the whole question of the privation and misery in Ireland is to be found the fact that you have huddled up in certain portions of the country large masses of the population upon soil which cannot maintain them, while you have at the same time throughout Ireland thousands and thousands of acres of the most fertile land in Europe, and in the whole world, which are as desolate and maintain as poor a population as any tracts in Australia or in America, or in the new countries of the world. And I may say that while, of course, we are glad that the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary has seen his way to increase the resources of the Congested Districts Board, I agree with the honourable Member for Mayo when he said that any such suggestion, though good in its way, is but tinkering with this question, and that what a Government so powerful, and with such resources at its hand as the present Government, ought to do is not to dole out a few more thousands a year to the Congested Districts Board,

1491
but to go to the whole root of the question, and to formulate some great plan—and it is quite within their power to do so—some great plan whereby, once and for all, this source of misery and wretchedness in Ireland should be put an end to, by taking the people from the congested districts and planting them upon fair terms upon the lands which are now unoccupied, Reference has been made to the terms upon which these large grazing farms might be broken up. I do not think any great difficulty will be found in that direction. I have not, I do not think any one has, proposed that anything in the shape of confiscation should be indulged in when dealing with the proprietors of these large farms. What we propose is that the Government should take compulsory powers to acquire these farms, upon fair and reasonable terms, and re-let them upon proper terms to the populations that are now suffering semi-starvation along the West Coast of Ireland, and in the congested districts. That is a great problem, a problem that I believe would repay any Government or any Minister who attempted to take it up and to solve it; and if the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary desires to leave his mark favourably and permanently upon Irish affairs, he will, now that he has the opportunity, deal with this great question, and see whether it is not possible to remove the congestion, and thereby put an end to the record of misery and famine by migrating the people to lands which are suitable for them, and unoccupied at the present time. This is not a new scheme at all. The late Mr. Parnell took the greatest possible interest in this question of migration. True, it must be said that the scheme which he formulated for migration in Ireland was not a success. It is perfectly true that it did not succeed, but its failure under the circumstances which attended its failure, if inquired into, would not be found to be any conclusive reason why the question of migration should not be entered upon by the Government under more favourable circumstances, and carried out successfully. The right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary referred to some meetings which have been held in Ireland in order to promote this idea of the migration of the people and the enlargement of agricultural
1492
holdings, and he made reference to agitation which had "disgraced Ireland" in the past. Well, of course, from a statement of that kind we can only draw one conclusion, and that is that the Irish people must continue in the future, by means of agitation, turmoil, and disturbance, to thrust their requirements upon the attention of the Government. The right honourable Gentleman speaks of a disgraceful agitation in the past. Does he refer to the agitation of the Land League? Does he refer to the agitation of the National League? Yes, they were disgraceful agitations. But how much more disgraceful is it, I submit, that the Government of this country will take no action, will pass no Act of Parliament,. until the people have raised the agitations which the right honourable Gentleman called disgraceful. Why, it is a simple fact that not a single Act of Parliament dealing with the land question has been passed in this House except it has come after agitations which the right honourable Gentleman has called disgraceful. But for the Land League there would not have been the present Land Court which prevails in Ireland. But for the National League there would not have been the improvement which has taken place in the position of the occupiers of the soil. And I must say that it is rather galling to Irish Members, when they have had long experience in past years, that they can get nothing in the way of justice except after agitation, and when they know that but for these agitations this House would never take any action, that the Chief Secretary should come down and call these agitations in the past disgraceful. If they were disgraceful, why did you act upon their recommendations? If the Land League organisation devastated and disgraced Ireland, why did you come here, year after year, and pass into Acts of Parliament the very demands which were put for ward? Well, Mr. Speaker, the right honourable Gentleman has been fir some time a Member of this House; he has not been so very long Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, but I venture to say that if his right honourable brother, who was for many years Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, was in that office

1493
under present circumstances, he would not meet a demand of a reasonable character, such as is embodied in this Amendment, he would not meet the claims of the Irish Members upon a question which is one of admitted grievance, by scornfully referring to their disgraceful agitations in the past. It would seem that the right honourable Gentleman desired the Irish people to further disgrace themselves by further agitation. He may imagine that there is no strong feeling in Ireland upon this question. Well, strong feeling has been exhibited; large meetings have been held all through the West of Ireland upon the subject; but these meetings have not, perhaps, attracted so much the interest of the right honourable Gentleman because they have been very peaceable demonstrations, because they have been unaccompanied by any great turbulence or disturbance. And I venture to say that if in the future these meetings in Ireland, and this movement in Ireland, are characterised by disturbance, by violence, by recourse to the methods which were adopted in the days of the Land League—if that should occur, the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary will have but himself to thank, because he has shown once more conclusively in this House, that as long as the people are peaceable, as long as they put forward their demand constitutionally by public meetings, and by doing nothing else, their demand will not receive the attention of the Government, and it is only when something untoward occurs in Ireland that the attention of the Government is riveted, and that an attempt is made to remedy the grievances of which the people complain. I do not say for a moment—I am sure the honourable Member for Mayo does not attempt to say—that this is not a question which is surrounded by the greatest possible difficulty. It is a question of very large extent. It is a question the settlement of which would involve much attention, much anxiety, and much care upon the part of any Government that attempted to solve it; but it is a question which goes to the very root of the whole difficulty in Ireland; it is a question which, if you once settle it satisfactorily, will relieve you of the necessity, year aft or year, of having appeals made for remedies
1494
against pastoral famines in Ireland. Take the people from the congested districts, put them upon the broad acres which are suitable for agricultural holdings; and if you do that you will not only prevent famine and distress recurring, but you will make the people that you govern contented to be upon the soil of their own country. I have no doubt in my own mind that in course of time this question will be settled. I have no doubt that in time, just as the question of fixing fair rents was taken up after many years of violent and fierce agitation, so, sooner or later, this question of removing the people to the best land in the country will be taken up. But I frankly say here to my honourable Friend the Member for Mayo, and to those who think with him, that I do not for one moment anticipate—and the Chief Secretary's speech leads me to this conclusion—that this great question, affecting the lives and the happiness of the masses of the Irish people, will either be taken up by this Government or any Government until an agitation is started in Ireland which shall be, in the words of the Chief Secretary, quite as disgraceful as the Land League agitation; and when it is quite as disgraceful, it will be at the same time, and then only, quite as efficient.
MR. LECKY: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that in the whole course of the present century no Government has done so much for the West of Ireland as the last Unionist Government in which the present First Lord of the Treasury was the Chief Secretary, the Government which established the Congested Districts Board, and which opened out the country by light railways. As for the present Government, in this very Debate we have heard an announcement of a large and most valuable augmentation of the resources of the Congested Districts Board, and one of the principal Measures—in fact the principal Irish Measure—brought before us this Session is to be the establishment of an agricultural board for raising the level of agriculture in Ireland, and the establishment of a system of technical education for the purpose of extending, as far as possible, those industries which are at present so lamentably wanting. I think the problem before us is not one which ought to be made the

1495
subject of invective. The true culprit is not the British Government nor the Irish landlords. It is the Atlantic ocean. The combination of mountains of ocean with the excessive rainfall that follows is the true reason for the distress existing in the western fringe of Ireland. You are dealing with a country of morass and rocks, where every slight increase of the enormous average rainfall inevitably brings failure of the potato, and consequent famine. I believe this problem cannot be dealt with better than on the lines which the Government has adopted, that is to say, by enlarging and strengthening that Congested Districts Board, which during the last years has done such an infinite amount of good in Ireland. I think by increasing its revenue and its powers the Government is most practically and effectively acting for the good of the people. I hope the Congested Districts Board will continue on its present basis. It is a body which has no ulterior object. It is not in any degree political; and I hope it will continue to consist of men who have long experience in this particular kind of work, who are appointed by the Government, and who, looking simply to the good of the country, are removed altogether from the electorate, and are not the tools of agitators or politicians. I must say, Sir, I should look with much hesitation upon any Measure for stereotyping on the soil the present holders of land in the poorer districts of Connaught. Something, but I think not much, may be done towards enlarging their holdings; but you must remember that they are among the worst farmers of Ireland and the most ignorant of agriculture, and they are the class who most invariably and largely sub-divide their holdings. They are also living in a country which cannot, in the long run, support them. Every few years famine comes, and it has to be met by special measures. You have a good deal of similar soil in Scotland, a great part of which is made prosperous by being given up to sporting purposes, which brings a great deal of money into the country and a great deal of employment also. The prosperity of these parts of Scotland depends upon the sporting industry and the development of tourist traffic, which has brought great numbers of English people to visit scenery which is exceedingly beautiful,
1496
but certainly not more beautiful than that of Mayo or the cliff scenery in Donegal.
A NATIONALIST MEMBER: And Clare.
MR. LECKY: And Clare. But I think the attempt to go down and make an attack upon the richer grazing land would be one of the worst things that could happen. Our first and most vital industry is the cattle trade. Nothing can be clearer than that, owing to the natural conditions of Ireland, and under a system of free trade, to which England is irrevocably committed, Ireland must be a pastoral country. It can only be by keeping up that pasture in a flourishing condition that any real prosperity can come. An attack upon the graziers and the cattle trade, coupled with a revival of the land agitation, which inevitably drives immense masses of capital out of the country, must be most disastrous. It is useless to give compulsory powers of purchase to the Congested Districts Board, as they clearly say they do not require it—[Several honourable Members: No, no!]—for there is abundance of land at their disposal. I no not intend to follow through all his speech, and I certainly do not mean to defend my right honourable Friend beside me (Mr. Plunkett) from the charge of excessive arrogance and excessive immodesty. Such charges may be safely left to the judgment of the House. But I do say that by turning the minds of the people of a great part of Ireland in a practical direction, and by showing how by patient work they can improve the economical condition of Ireland, and so raise it to a higher level of civilisation, my right honourable Friend has done more than any other non-official Member for the benefit of his country.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I wish to thank the honourable and gallant Gentleman the Member for a Division of Middlesex and the honourable Gentleman the Member for Derby for their contributions to this Debate. With regard to the first honourable Gentleman, it is not the first time that he has endeavoured to soften the evil effects of the practice of provocative language by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I remember last year, when the right honourable Gentleman made

1497
his historic and remarkable allusion to champagne and the South of France, as a remedy for the grievances of the congested districts, the honourable and gallant Gentleman was one of the first to get up and very properly reprove him for the language he employed. Just let me make a passing allusion to the speech we have just heard from the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Dublin University. He said, and said quite properly, I thought, that this was not a question to be settled by invective. I quite agree with him. I would say that I concur, and I readily concur, with the remark that this Debate proceeded on the lines of perfectly calm discussion of a very difficult question until the right honourable Gentleman unhappily interfered, and in the true spirit of the speech which he made last year he introduced into the discussion of this question a spirit of rage and tumult which had been entirely absent until he spoke. I take the speech of the honourable Gentleman the Member for Derby. I think the speech of the honourable Gentleman the Member for Derby is really a strong defence of the Amendment of my honourable Friend the Member for South Mayo. The honourable Gentleman described how he had frequently visited Ireland during the last nine years. He described in eloquent language the misery of the people in these congested districts. He described how badly they were fed, how badly they were housed, the hard and sometimes horrible conditions under which they exercised their employment, and he used one phrase which struck me at the time, because, really, I must say, the honourable Gentleman brought to the knowledge of the House the fact that a system of rent which I considered had been abolished in Ireland seems still to exist in some of these districts, namely, rent in the shape of labour. Well, Sir, I wonder if the House knows what this exactly means. I turn to the appendix of the first Report of the Congested Districts Board, and I find that amongst the budgets which they have drawn up of these households in Ireland is one of "60s. for sixty days' duty work." I wonder if the House knows what that means. It means that as part of the rent which these tenants pay they have to give sixty days of their labour at the munificent rate of one shilling per day. Sir, when we hear the talk about an
1498
attack upon the rights of the landlords, when my honourable Friend is accused of wild and violent agitation, and when honourable Gentlemen opposite say that this land could not pay even if there were no rent, I wonder they do not go on to infer, as we do, that rent ought long ago to have ceased upon these holdings; and that is the opinion of some of the highest economic authorities of this country. But, Sir, what did the honourable Member for Derby say? He said he had visited these districts for nine years, and then he went on, to declare—and I honour him for the declaration, and it is, at all events, an argument in favour of my honourable Friend's Amendment— that the condition of these people had practically remained unchanged from what it was nine years ago. We go further. Our acquaintance with these districts is longer than nine years. My honourable friend the Member for South Mayo was born quite close to the district. So was the honourable Member for East Mayo. The fact that they were born within a few miles of the district is one of the many reasons why the Chief Secretary is entitled to compare their ignorance with their knowledge.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I made no such statement. I admit—I quite admit—that the honourable Member for East Mayo is acquainted with these conditions. What I said is this, that he misunderstood, or misinterpreted the work that the Congested Districts Board had done in connection with the purchase and re-sale of land.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I know perfectly well what the right honourable Gentleman said; but the right honourable Gentleman did say that he had never had anything like a practical suggestion from either of my honourable Friends, and that they were ignorant of the proceedings of the Congested Districts Board. Well, Sir, they have read every line of the Reports of the Congested Districts Board, and they have made more than one practical suggestion, as I shall presently show. Here is a problem with which we are face to face. Everybody admits that these holdings are too small. Everybody admits the miserable condition in which these people live. Year follows year, Session follows Session, generation follows generation, and we get no remedy for these evils; and now, Sir, the Chief Secretary gets

1499
up and practically gives a complete non possumus to any proposal to deal in anything like a broad and large spirit with this question. Now, Sir, I come to the speech of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for South Dublin. I am not here to say that I cast the least doubt upon the good intentions of the right honourable Gentleman. I am sure he has shown a spirit of zeal and energy in the pursuit of his ideas for which he deserves great credit, and which mark him in very striking contrast with others of his class in Ireland. At the same time, I do think that the honourable Member for East Mayo was entitled to say that the right honourable Gentleman was a politician as well as a philanthropist, and that he does use this work as a sort of propaganda for his own principles, in the way which I shall show. I have read, and I have read with astonishment, his speech. The right honourable Gentleman got up a few minutes ago when the honourable Member for East Mayo was speaking, and he denied the statement that he objected to, or has his doubts on the subject of peasant proprietorship. I take up the speech as reported in "The Times." After passing in review the experiences of Continental countries, he went on to give many reasons why, in his opinion, peasant proprietary was rather a doubtful advantage to any country.
MR. PLUNKETT: I then went on to show how I thought a peasant proprietary could be established in Ireland.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I will come to that point presently. I must say that it does not encourage me in the belief that the right honourable Gentleman is very strong upon the remedy of peasant proprietary when he begins by throwing as much cold water as he can upon its principle. It is too late in the day to disparage the principle of peasant proprietary. The richest and most comfortable and strongest country in the world to-day is France, and the strength of that country comes from the system of peasant proprietary. Well, Sir, then I come to the remedy of the right honourable Gentleman. He says you are beginning at the wrong end; spread the co-operative principle encouraged by the society with which the name of the right honourable Gentleman is so hon-
1500
ourably associated; teach the people to use the land better than they have done, to get a larger production out of the land; give them better agricultural education, and teach them to lead thrifty lives, to have self-respect, and so on! Mr. Speaker, really I am amazed and amused that the right honourable Gentleman in his speech should have used the language that he did. Teach them to use the land better!—teach them to use the half-acre, or the two acres, or the three-and-a-half-acres of morass and bog which they have at present; let them go to all the latest discoveries of chemistry; let them read Baron Liebig's latest treatise upon the finest methods of agricultural production, and when they have saturated their minds with the latest discoveries of philosophy and the highest teachings of chemistry, let them apply all this knowledge to their two acres of morass and bog in the congested districts of Ireland, and that is the way to improve the conditions under which they are living! And that is the way the question is to be solved! If ever there were a more grotesque or absurd proposal of putting the cart before the horse, I would like to hear it made by the right honourable Gentleman. Does not everyone know that the best way of promoting thrift and self-help, of developing self-respect, of encouraging higher education, of increasing production from the land, in regard to these people, is to remove them from the hopelessly small and infertile holdings they have at present, and transfer them to larger holdings and to better land? Then the right honourable Gentleman wound up with his favourite maxim of "Codling's your friend, not Short." Really, one of the things that makes one convinced that the right honourable Gentleman is so sincere and enthusiastic is, that he has become almost a monomaniac on this point—only monomaniacs are always sincere, and enthusiastic and honest! What does the right honourable Gentleman say? He says that the people should be taught to get more out of the land. More out of two-and-a-half acres! That they must produce more cheaply. More cheaply from that amount of land! That they should have improved appliances. Improved appliances for two-and-a-half acres of bog! Why should

1501
they not have steam ploughs? Then he went on to say that the proper and the wise thing to do was to give support to those who were promoting the self-help movement. In other words, the wise thing for the Irish people, including the people in the congested districts, to do, is to become members of the co-operative society, and then they will have creameries, and improved education, and the best modern agricultural machinery, and steam ploughs, and Liebig's latest book on agricultural chemistry for the purpose of teaching them to deal with this bog soil. There, have I not made mince-meat of the proposals of the right honourable Gentleman? There is only one way of dealing with this question, and that is by enlarging the holdings and planting the tenants on more fertile land. Now I come to the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Dublin University. He says we must not have any absurd proposals about the compulsory purchase of land. And the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary spoke of the suggestions in the Amendment as rough and ready methods. Would anybody suppose, to hear the comments of these right honourable Gentlemen, that the Amendment of my right honourable Friend is taken almost word for word from a report of that very Congested Districts Board, the praises of which have been sounded so highly in this House? I will read a statement made not 10 years ago—in 1895—by the Congested Districts Board. The following resolution was adopted by the members of the Board and transmitted to the right honourable the Chief Secretary for Ireland—
"That the Congested Districts Board is in possession of information through their inspectors that there are large tracts of land that might be used to enlarge the holdings of small occupiers, and to promote a scheme of migration in the congested districts. The Board are, however, of opinion that it will be impossible for them to give due effect to this important part of their work unless more funds are placed at their disposal and compulsory powers are given to them to acquire such lands."
And my honourable Friend becomes a dreamer, an unpractical philanthropist, a lawless agitator, because he puts into his Amendment almost the ipsissima verba of the report of the Congested Districts Board, of which the right honour-
1502
able the Chief Secretary for Ireland is the president! Why, I never really knew such a world of topsy-turvydom, in which we have a Scotch Chief Secretary lecturing men who were born there on the conditions of life in Mayo. I know nothing more topsy-turvy than this absurd raid, this absurd attack on the terms of the official report of the Congested Districts Board embodied in the Amendment of my honourable friend. I understand that the right honourable Gentleman the Member for South Dublin was one of the first members of the Board to agree to the resolution which was unanimously passed by them. The right honourable the Chief Secretary says that the conditions have changed since 1895. How have they changed?
MR. HORACE C. PLUNKETT: Because we can get the land without compulsory powers.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Well, really, some of the interjections the right honourable Gentleman makes seem to me—if he will allow me to say so without disrespect—to be absurd. Only a few years since the proposal asking for compulsory powers was made, and without any real change in the situation, the right honourable Gentleman, as well as his friends, intend to go into the Lobby against the Amendment which embodies it. My honourable and learned Friend says that only two estates have been purchased, but that the purchase of estates is going on with considerably accelerated speed. I do not know whether I should be uncharitable in saying that this is the result of the agitation going on in the west of Ireland. I do not say, I do not believe, and I do riot hope that the improvement of the condition of Ireland can be got from this Government, or any Government, only by serious agitation, but I am bound to say that all the past history of Ireland shows it is only by agitation in this House that we can ever get the Government to listen to the grievances of Ireland, and that so long as the country remains without agitation this House is both blind and deaf to the lightest demands of Ireland. I must add that if the agitation in the West of Ireland acquires any accession of strength—which already has become a powerful

1503
movement—it would get it from the speech of the right honourable Gentleman. What does that speech say? I do not want to do injustice to the right honourable Gentleman, but I do not find in that speech—with the exception of the reference to the increased grant to the Congested Districts Board—one word of hope, one word of encouragement to the people in the congested districts. Not a word. That is a nice message of peace to send them. And now let me ask if ever there was a Government which was in a position to deal with this question if it is not the present Government? The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Dublin University speaks as if this was a hopeless problem. And why? Because of the Atlantic Ocean! Why, the Atlantic Ocean seems to have a very melancholy and depressing effect on the character of some honourable and right honourable Gentlemen from Ireland. The Atlantic does not stretch into the grazing land of Roscommon, nor into the middle of the county of Mayo, nor into the middle of the rich grazing lands of Galway. Whoever proposed that the people should be stereotyped in the congested districts of the West of Ireland Our purpose is the very opposite. We want to drive them out of their holdings in the congested districts. We want to take them away from the melancholy ocean and plant them on these rich grazing lands, where certainly they could make a living better than under their present conditions. The Government is in a position to deal with this question if they have the will. The will is lacking, not the power. They have a tremendous majority, and they would meet with opposition from no part of the House if they brought in a well considered scheme. But they prefer to palter, like the right honourable Member for South Dublin, with creameries and steam ploughs instead of proving their broad statesmanship by a comprehensive scheme of settlement. The right honourable Gentleman is content to leave this festering sore in the side of Ireland just as bad as it ever was when he came into office.
MR. DENIS KILBRIDE: I sympathise, Mr. Speaker, with what has been said on this side of the House
1504
on this question. The grazing lands of Connaught are mainly composed of second-class country, and are very little fit for fattening cattle or sheep. They are mainly used for the purpose of raising store cattle, and if it were not for the Bill introduced and passed last year by the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture, which effectually debarred foreign com petition in store cattle in this country, our grazing lands in Connaught would be worth 50 per cent, less than they are to-day. Well, Sir, if it is hard under present conditions for graziers on the best lands of Ireland—even for those in County Meath, where they are able to finish off their cattle—it is much more difficult for the graziers who have no land in their possession, except land only fit to rear stores. At the present time several of the graziers in Connaught are almost in a bankrupt condition, and they have expressed their willingness to surrender the land in their possession if they got any compensation at all for it. And although the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ire land may be under the impression that the statements as to the position of these graziers, and the amount of compensation required, have been exaggerated, he will find that they are true, and that many of the graziers would be only too glad to surrender their land if they got anything for doing so. I want to know what have the speeches of the honourable Member for East Mayo or South Mayo, or the speech of Mr. William O'Brien in the west of Ireland got to do with the grievances of the people in the West of Ireland, who are suffering so severely. Is it a fact that there are 50,000 people in Connaught on the verge of starvation and famine? What have the speeches of my honourable Friends or of Mr. William O'Brien to do with the condition of the people in these districts? Is it a legitimate excuse for the Minister responsible for the good government of Ireland to stand up and say that because of the speeches of agitators in Ireland he will do nothing to relieve an admitted grievance? I say it shows an absence of statesmanship, and it is putting a premium on agitation. Here we have been from 1891 to the present moment asking the Government to increase the grant of £42,000 or £43,000 to the Congested Districts

1505
Board. The Congested Districts Board themselves have passed resolutions every year asking for an increase, and it is curious that they never got a penny of advance from the British Treasury until after the establishment of the United Irish League. I say that this increased grant to the Congested Districts Board of £20,000 a year is the first instalment of that which may be extracted from the British Treasury by agitation in the interests of the people of the West of Ireland. And if the people in the West of Ireland are sensible enough to continue the agitation, and spread the organisation over all the other provinces of Ireland, we shall have next year a different speech from the right honourable the Chief Secretary than we had the other day. The necessity for migrating the people to good lands, and of giving compulsory powers of purchase to the Congested Districts Board will then be as apparent to the right honourable the Chief Secretary and to the right honourable Member for South Dublin as they were in 1895 when the Board passed the resolution quoted to the House. The honourable Member for Derby made in his speech allusion to the condition the people in the Congested Districts were in, and said that it was shocking, and the honourable Member gave some figures to the House showing the high rate of interest paid by the poor peasants to the gombeen men for money which they borrowed. I am sorry to say that in many cases the money advanced by the gombeen man is charged at an even higher rate of interest than, that mentioned. The right honourable Member for South Dublin had said that cooperative dairying is one of the great necessities for the west of Ireland, but I maintain that the land in the West of Ireland is not naturally adapted for dairying—even the best of it. And so co-operative dairying can have little effect in improving the condition of the people in the congested districts. Nor is the land in the immediate vicinity of the congested districts suited for dairying. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like this House to consider whether the people in these congested districts are there from any fault of their own, or whether they are there because of the action of this House in the past. I hold that these people are in the congested districts of the West of Ireland because of
1506
the mania for the consolidation of holdings that took possession of the land lords, and more especially of the land agents 40 or 50 years ago. That is why they are not there through their own fault. They are there because of the existence of bad landlords, and they are themselves unable to remedy their terrible condition, and hence I think they have very strong claims on the House to provide a remedy for the existing state of things. One would think that this House would be only too anxious to remove from England—from this great country—the disgrace of having 50,000 people appealing periodically to the charity of England to save them from starvation within 60 miles of your own shores. We hear a good deal about American friendship for England, but I believe that the Irish-Americans generally will not be induced to promote this friendship so long as they are aware that this House refuses to do anything to relieve the sad condition of these 50,000 people in the West of Ireland. I would draw the attention of the right honourable Member for South Dublin to a case that occurred in my own constituency. Colonel O'Hara, a large landlord in the district, had two or three large grazing farms on his hands. These grazing farms had been let on the principles which obtained in the past, but this year the Colonel instead of letting them to large graziers determined to divide them amongst small tenants of his own in the immediate vicinity. He increased the holdings of these small tenants by ten acres in some instances and by 15 acres in other cases. Colonel O'Hara is satisfied that he has not alone improved the condition of the small farmer tenants, but that he has also secured a fair rent for his land. I ask the right honourable Member for South Dublin, and the right honourable the Chief Secretary to pay special attention to this case and the result which will follow. Everybody believes that the result will be most satisfactory, and for the mutual benefit of the landlord and tenants. Colonel O'Hara has actually carried out the scheme and yielded to the demands of the United Irish League, although every body knows that Colonel O'Hara is not to be influenced in a bad sense by agitation. I know that there are several landlords in the West of Ireland who would be anxious to follow the example

1507
if the right honourable the Chief Secretary and the Congested Districts Board gave assistance and monetary aid to do it.
MR. JAMES GALLOWAY WEIR: I should not have inter vened in this Debate, seeing that it is in the able hands of honourable Gentlemen who have been born and brought up in Ireland, and know all the conditions of life in that country. But I rise to protest against the statement of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Dublin University—who I regret to see is not in his place—that the West of Ireland is in a similar position to the Highlands of Scotland, and that there is no land fit for cultivation. When the right honourable Gentleman made that statement he showed that he knows absolutely nothing of what he is talking about. I am astonished that he does not take the trouble to go to the library and there read the report of the Deer Forests Commission, in which he will find that there are nearly 22,000,000 acres of land suitable for the purpose of settling the people now entirely given up to deer. We are told by honourable Members behind me that there is plenty of rich grazing land in Ireland which ought to be available for the people. I am not acquainted with these lands, but I prefer to accept the statements of men on this side of the House who know the facts to the statements of the honourable Gentlemen on the other side of the House who do not know the facts.
MR. W. O'MALLEY: Mr. Speaker, I think it will be generally admitted that the speech of my honourable Friend the Member for South Mayo, in proposing his Amendment, was a most moderate one, and it was moderate and reasonable because he felt that his case was a good one, and did not require strong or violent language to recommend it to the House. My honourable Friend was taunted by the right honourable Gentleman for Chief Secretary for Ireland for the moderation of his language here as compared with his language in the West of Ireland, and the right honourable Gentleman also launched out into a violent attack on the Member for East Mayo and on his Friend William
1508
O Brien, because of the character of their speeches in connection with the United Irish League; and he endeavoured to make this House believe that Irish Members have not the courage to say here what they would say in Ireland. Mr. Speaker, the charge is grotesquely untrue, and especially is it untrue of the honourable Member who proposed this Amendment. To represent the Irish Members as speaking with one voice in this House and another voice in Ireland is too absurd, and I am sure the Chief Secretary in his calmer moments would not charge my honourable Friend with want of courage. The right honourable Gentleman has accused the honourable Member for East Mayo of opposing, or, at all events, of not assisting the First Lord of the Treasury when he was engaged in establishing the Congested Districts Board, and he says that my honourable Friend is now trying to "reap where he has not sown." This is another ridiculous charge, Sir. Is it not well known to this House, as it is well known throughout Ireland, that the establishment of the Congested Districts Board was the result of years of struggle and agitation on the part of my honourable Friend and those who have been associated with him. Every effort made by an English Ministry or by this House for the benefit of Ireland was the result of violent agitation. That is an absolute truism. Would we have had Disestablishment were it not for the intensity of Fenianism? Would we have had the Land Act of 1891 were it not for the intensity—and, if you like, violence—of the Land League movement? Would we have had the several halting and somewhat impotent Amendments to that Act were it not for the Plan of Campaign? And would we have this extra £20,000 a year to the funds of the Congested Districts Board were it not for the so-called violent speeches of William O'Brien and of the honourable Members for South and East Mayo? No, Sir, all those remedies, halting and insufficient as they are for the ills of Ireland, are due to the persistent and patriotic efforts of my honourable Friends, and of those who have assisted them in the movements of which they were, and are, leaders. I am quite sure that neither William O'Brien nor my friends near me

1509
care two rows of pins about any attack made upon them by the Chief Secretary, especially if those attacks are accompanied by a promise of an extra £20,000 a year to help on the object so dear to their hearts. The right honourable Gentleman would lead the House to think that we Irish Members are opposed to the policy and the object of the Congested Districts Hoard. We are nothing of the sort. We have over and over again spoken of it as the only decent and popular Board ever appointed by the British Government in Ireland. Our complaint is that it works too slowly, and that it has not had sufficient money at its disposal to carry out its aims in anything like an effective manner. We think that it is not sufficiently equipped to deal with recurring distress and famine in the West. Honourable Members on all sides of this House, I am sure, believe me when I say that it is a most painful, repugnant, and a humiliating task for us Irish Members to be bringing forward, year after year, in this House Motions draw-its attention to impending or existing famines in our country. We want to be relieved of this odious duty, and we submit this Amendment to the House because we believe that if Her Majesty's Government adopted the recommendation in that Amendment, this chronic distress in the West would be effectually and finally dealt with. Mr. Speaker, we are all agreed that a considerable portion of the West of Ireland suffers from chronic distress, and I think the Chief Secretary himself will admit that actual famine has occurred from time to time—well, at all events, he won't deny that if his celebrated labour test was not availed of two years ago, and if the Manchester Fund and the Dublin Mansion House Fund were not started, there would have been a famine—at all events, I believe there would. We are also agreed, Mr. Speaker, that something should be done to remedy this state of affairs, and if we on these Benches differ from you on those Benches, it is only as to degree and to method. The Chief Secretary and the right honourable Member for South Dublin, think that the process of putting an end to famine should be slow and cautious. The Chief Secretary appears to be quite satisfied with very small results so far. He told us the other
1510
night, when dealing with the question of migration, that
"Three persons were migrated from one district in Curragh to another district in Curragh, and that the three persons appear to be satisfied."
It has taken four or five years to satisfy three persons, and I wonder how long it will take to satisfy the remaining thousands at this rate of progress? The right honourable Gentleman does not appear to have much faith in migration—he says that the people do not want to be migrated. There may be some, of course, who would object to migrate, but surely the Chief Secretary is trifling with the intelligence of this House when he states that those poor people, whom he admits to be in a chronic state of distress, would object to leave their wretched holdings for larger and better ones under more favourable conditions. It is true the poor cottier loves his cabin, and hates to be driven from it by an exacting landlord, but we know only too well that he has to fly to America or elsewhere, and to tell us, therefore, that if his condition is improved by migration he would still prefer to stick to his misery, is rather taxing our credulity too severely. Then the Chief Secretary informs us that the late Mr. Parnell tried migration and failed. If I remember rightly, there were circumstances attending his experiment that made failure inevitable, and one of those conditions was the excessive price paid for the purchase of property. You can buy a thing at too great a price, and if you give 25s. for a sovereign you are not likely to prosper. And, Mr. Speaker, that brings me to the crux of this whole matter. The Chief Secretary states that the Congested Districts Board has been purchasing estates at the average price of 11¼ years' purchase of their present rentals, and the House might suppose that this was a low price, whereas, as a matter of fact, the price is extravagantly high, and personally I do not think that a scheme of migration, or the enlargement of holdings on such terms, can ever be a success. We are all agreed that the holdings in the congested areas are too small—that is undoubtedly true. But what I want to impress on the House is the fact that the rents paid for these holdings are

1511
ruinously excessive. When I addressed a meeting of my constituents a few months ago I told them, as I tell this House to-night, that in paying, as they do, £4 or £5 a year for their miserable plots, they should not be paying more than 4s. or 5s. Let any honourable Member go to Connemara and look at the holdings I speak of—and they art characteristic of 90 per cent, of the holdings in the smaller congested districts—and if he is acquainted with agriculture at all, I am absolutely certain he would agree with me, and he would go further and say, as I have heard many an Englishman say, that a hundred acres of the so-called land upon which these poor people are doomed to live would not be worth possessing even rent free. Yes, but if these holdings are not worth rent, why are they compelled to pay it? If instead of paying £4 or £5, which, of course, is never made out of the holdings at all, but comes from friends in America, or from the harvest-fields or mines of England, they had only 4s. or 5s. to pay—the nominal value of most of those holdings—they might be able to eke out a bare existence. For, be it remembered that £4 or £5 a year to those people is a considerable sum, and it is all nonsense for some people to say, as I have heard it said, that the people would not be any better off if they had not to pay this excessive tax. If the Land Commissioners, Mr. Speaker, fixed the rents in Connemara on the value of the land, and bore in mind the late Judge O'Hagan's dictum, that a man should "live and thrive" on his holding, then I say that the people of Connemara and those other people we are dealing with should not pay more than a shilling where they are now paying a pound. The cause of this chronic distress that this Amendment proposes to deal with is due, in the first place, to excessive rents, and in the second place to inadequate holdings. But if the Congested Districts Board are purchasing estates at 11¼ years' purchase of their present rentals, and if the enlarged holdings are to be paid for by the tenants on that basis, then I fear that the last state of these poor people will be worse than their first. While the Land Commissioners continue to fix those excessive rents, of course, the landlords do not want to sell except at a big price; but,
1512
Sir, if the condition of those people is to be improved, it is absolutely necessary that they are to have larger holdings at nominal rents, and so the landlords must be compelled to sell at a price to enable the tenants to live in some decency and comfort out of their holdings. I would say one word on the question of the grass farms. What are those grass farms? What is their history? Generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, I am correct in saying that these are farms that have been reclaimed from the wild or mountain state into comparatively good land. And how? Not by the landlord, but by unfortunate tenants who, when they had, by their industry and labour, turned a barren waste into a smiling land, and when they were unable to pay the perpetually increasing rent, were forced to clear out or take possession of other wastes. These grass lands are now let at a competitive price to the grazier—who is very often a grabber—on an 11 months' tenancy system, to avoid the operation of the Land Act, and our contention is that these grass lands should be in the hands of the people rather than in the hands of the grazier or grabber. They should go to enlarge the small holdings, or be used for the purpose of migration. If the Government will not tackle this question of periodic famine in a thorough fashion and on the lines laid down in the Amendment of my honourable Friend; if, instead, the matter is to be dealt with by the Congested Districts Board in the future, as it has been in the past; if the purchase of estates, the enlargement of holdings, and the work of migration are to be effected by the slow and gradual process so much beloved by the Chief Secretary and the honourable Member for South Dublin, then I say Mr. Speaker, the proverbial snail, moving with patience and perseverance, will reach Jerusalem just as soon as the extirpation of poverty and distress in Connemara, and those other districts in Ireland will be removed by such methods. And the work of agitation and strife will go on, for it will be the duty of the Irish Members to make every effort, in this House and out of it, to save our poor people from starvation, and to preserve the remnant of our race that is left.
MR. MURNAGHAN: Mr. Speaker, in the beginning of this Debate I did not think I should have been called upon to intervene, as I imagined the matter would be discussed by honourable Members representing the congested districts. But statements have been made during the Debate to which I desire to take exception. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for South Dublin holds a position on the Congested Districts Board, and accordingly any statement lie makes as to the working of that Board is of importance. But he made a statement so strangely at variance with the objects of the Board that I think it is right that the attention of the House and the country should be especially directed to it. The right honourable Gentleman made a very peculiar remark, considering that the Congested Districts Board is supposed to live by State aid. It has been built up by State aid, I suppose it intends to continue by State aid, and it could not exist without State aid. What did he say? He said that very much good work could not be done in Ireland by State aid in this connection. Now I claim that no work at all of any good can be done in Ireland without State aid, and I think such a statement by a Member of the Congested Districts Board is very peculiar. I wish also to say that he has made another statement also inconsistent with the objects of the Board. I take my quotation from the London "Times," and I am sure every loyal Englishman will not question the veracity of what appears in the columns of that eminent journal. "The Times" reports the right honourable Gentleman as having said in the Debate on Friday night:—
"To make labour effective and the acquisition of capital upon reasonable terms easy was as essential as the acquisition of land."
Now, Sir, I consider that an economic heresy, for I say that the acquisition of land in connection with the relief of distress in the West of Ireland is the first the cardinal, and the main thing, for without land the people cannot live, and it is to see that the people live that we are moving in this matter. Therefore, these two statements of the right honourable Gentleman, in my opinion, call for
1514
special attention. He also made another statement which struck me as very strange coming from the Gentleman who holds the position of President of the Irish Industrial Organisation. He told us that there were dangers in peasant proprietary. These words sound very strange to my ears. It has been the hope of Irish farmers for 50 years to become the owners of their holdings, and to be told to-day by a Gentleman who goes among these farmers posing as a friend that there were dangers in making the occupier the owner of his holding is to me an economic heresy, because, if there is any hope of salvation for the Irish people, any hope of progress and advancement and contentment, it is by rooting the occupier in the soil and making him the owner thereof. Again, the right honourable Gentleman said that, supposing we now enlarged these farms to a reasonable extent, he presumed that in the course of 20 years we would be back again where we were through the process of cutting up these farms, and the last state of Ireland would be worse than the first. Now, I think that is a horrible statement for a Member of the Congested Districts Board to make. What is the Board for? Is it not its business to take the people off these miserable and narrow areas of land, where life is insupportable, and give them land on which they can live? I know something of land business, and I say no labouring man can support on 2½ acres a family of four or five children. I am acquainted with farming operations—it is my business—and therefore I speak as a man who knows something of farming when I say that no man could support a family on such a farm as that. The right honourable Gentleman tells me, an Irish farmer, that it would be wrong for me or my children to own the soil, and that there was danger in it, but I tell him that that is abhorrent to the nature of the Irish people. The whole object of the right honourable Gentleman throughout this Debate was to minimise the value of the enlargement of farms and of migration, and to magnify the benefits to be gained by co-operation. He wants to teach the poor people that they should all churn their cream in one barrel, and he seems to think that men can employ their labour where they have no land. Sir, that is a deplorable state

1515
of things, and I quote an authority in support of my statement which I think the right honourable Gentleman will not question. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Leeds noted with care the object of the right honourable Gentleman, and he paid special attention to his references to peasant proprietary. He is reported in "The Times" of Saturday as having said "the right honourable Gentleman had pointed out the danger of a peasant proprietary." The right honourable Gentleman the Member for South Dublin denied that he made any such statement, but will he deny it now, when the words come from the lips of such an authority as the Chief Secretary? I think not. I pin him to that statement, and if he comes to the north of Ireland the Unionist farmers will know the kind of man they have to deal with. I do not intend to trouble the House much longer, but I must refer to one other statement made by the right honourable Gentleman. He was all the time arguing against peasant proprietary, and he said—
"The instincts of the Irish people were more pastoral than agricultural. Prom his experience in America, agriculture was least pursued by his countrymen, especially those from the poorer parts of Ireland."
It is not the first time the right honourable Gentleman has trotted out his American experiences, but it is the first time I will trot out mine. I think I know as much about American life as any right honourable or honourable Gentleman in this House. I have lived and laboured in the country for 20 years, and I will tell you why the Irish people do not buy farms in New York or Massachusetts. The reason is, that when they arrive in New York they have hardly money enough to keep them for a week, and they certainly have no money to speculate in landed or house property, and I say it is mockery for the right honourable Gentleman to use the poverty of the Irish people who were driven across the Atlantic by harsh laws to find a shelter in America to make such statements. I have met Irish farmers in America who were very successful, and they formed as large a proportion as the farmers of any other nationality, and it is not true to say that Irishmen in America avoid the industry of agriculture. It is, of course,
1516
impossible for them to get land until they have the means, and having made money in another occupation, it is not likely they will drop it. It is not true to say that the Irish people do not love agriculture. Who has not heard of the love deep down in the heart of every Irishman to purchase his holding and be the owner of the land on which he was born? I do not believe there is any people in the world so attached to the land as the Irish, and, therefore, when the right honourable Gentleman propagates his theories in the House of Commons and tries to throw cold water on the real salvation of the poor people of the West, I say he is only trying to build up his own little fads. I do not wish to be taken as attacking the right honourable Gentleman, because I believe he is in earnest, but he is so engrossed in his, own undertakings that he does not allow anyone else to have a chance. I thought it was only right that I should give the House some information regarding Irish life in America, as I am one of those who were driven across the Atlantic, and when I got to New York the last thing I thought of was of buying land, because I had no money to buy it. It will not do for the right honourable Gentleman, who merely crosses to America and back again, to bring his experiences before the House; but I think he will not speak much more about them in my presence again. I should now like to hear from the Treasury Bench a supplemental statement to that given on Friday night. I am no agitator and no politician in this matter, but I speak in the interests of the poor people of Ireland, and I think it would be better for the Chief Secretary, when he now has the opportunity and power which, perhaps, may not be again available, to make an attempt to cure a disease which has been festering and creating trouble in the nation for many years.
MR. DALY: Mr. Speaker, 12 months ago I had the honour of moving the Second Reading of the Congested Districts Bill, and on that occasion the right honourable Gentleman the Member for South Dublin gave that Bill a very large and rather generous measure of support. What surprised me on Friday night was that

1517
he completely turned round from the views he expressed 12 months ago. The honourable Member who moved this Amendment introduced it in such a moderate and reasonable manner that no one could have felt any resentment. Any person acquainted with this House will have observed that the Government always want someone to draw a red herring across the track of any Amendment they do not favour, and on the present instance they got the right honourable Gentleman to do it. The right honourable Gentleman seems quite shocked that my honourable Friend the Member for South Mayo should want compulsory powers with regard to the Congested Districts Board. But 12 months ago, when he spoke on the Bill I had then the honour of introducing, he made the following remarks:—
"The difficulty of acquiring land and providing a house and outbuildings and giving the tenant a little capital in the way of stock is almost insuperable, and consequently the remedy which in most cases remains is adding to the holding in which the people already live. The fact to be admitted—and I am convinced that a close examination of the facts will prove it to be so—is that the acquisition of additional land is an absolute necessity in order to remedy a state of things which is a disgrace to civilisation. In certain areas there is, of course, a great deal of prima facie evidence in favour of the compulsory acquisition of land to effect this purpose, and land cannot be otherwise acquired. I should stipulate that if compulsory powers were given they should be given in such a way that they would not form a precedent for lands not similarly situated."
Twelve months ago the right honourable Gentleman was anxious that land should be acquired compulsorily by the Congested Districts Board, but on Friday night he was quite opposed to any such suggestion. The idea of the right honourable Gentleman is that the only salvation for the poor people of Ireland is creameries. But I cannot see what use creameries are to people who have not any cows. The first thing I think is necessary for making cream is to have cows and the land to grass the cows upon. If the Amendment is adopted by the Government, it would result in an enlargement of holdings, and the people would be given an opportunity of keeping cows. Then they could be taught to make butter. But it seems to me that the right honour-
1518
able Gentleman is rather afraid that any grants of money which the Government are going to give under the new Industries Bill would be devoted to' the acquisition of land by the Congested Districts Board. Mr. Wrench, another Member of the Congested Districts Board, is already causing a great deal of worry and useless expenditure by the introduction of hackney stallions into Connemara, by which a useful class of pony has been spoiled. The right honourable Gentleman is a, Member of the Congested Districts Board, and Mr. Wrench is another, and between them a lot of money, which would otherwise have been at the disposal of the Board for the acquisition of land, has been spent for useless and unnecessary purposes. One thing struck me very much in the speech of the Chief Secretary on the Amendment. When it was mentioned by the honourable Member on this side of the House that he agreed with the report that was issued which favoured compulsory powers for the Congested Districts Board, he denied it, and put the statement on the shoulders of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Montrose. That was rather an unfortunate admission for the Chief Secretary, because it showed that while the Chief Secretary in the last Government was anxious to settle this question by giving compulsory powers to the Board, the Unionist Chief Secretary was not prepared to carry out what his predecessor approved of. What strikes me as very strange is that every member of the Board signed that report which the Chief Secretary stated on Friday night was drawn up by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Montrose.
MR. GERALD BALFOURdissented.
MR. DALY: The Chief Secretary now says he did not make any such statement, and, of course, I should be very sorry to accuse him of it if he did not make it. But I was under the impression that he stated on Friday night that that report was drawn up previous to the time he entered Office. If that is not what he said, I should be sorry to attack him for it. Mr. Speaker, emigration is now larger than it has been for some time, and as a matter of Statesmanship, and as he is professing to do

1519
a great deal for Ireland, I think if he would accept this Amendment it would remove a great deal of heart-burning in Ireland, and his name would be respected by the unfortunate peasants in the West of Ireland. What is wanted is to put the people back again on the lands their forefathers had. There is nothing more reasonable, considering that a number of very large landowners are willing to get rid of their land, and if that land were purchased from them it would be the means of putting the people back again on the land of their forefathers. I think if this Amendment, so moderately and reasonably proposed by my honourable Friend the Member for South Mayo, were accepted it would cause good will in the West of Ireland. I would ask the Chief Secretary to consider that the mover of this Amendment has only at heart the good of
the unfortunate people he represents. The right honourable Gentleman himself is only in the country very seldom, and possibly he has not visited the districts to which this Amendment would apply, and he can scarcely be as good a judge as the honourable Members from the West of Ireland, who understand the wants of the people. The Amendment is a reasonable one, and I should be very glad to see it accepted.
Question put—
"That those words be there added."
The House divided; Ayes 122; Noes, 203.—(Division List No. 12.)

AYES.

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

Hayden, John Patrick

Paulton, James Mellor

Allen, W. (Newc. under Lyme)

Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Asher, Alexander

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert H.

Hogan, James Francis

Price, Robert John

Baker, Sir John

Holden, Sir Angus

Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

Barlow, John Emmott

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Birrell, Augustine

Jacoby, James Alfred

Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

Blake, Edward

Joicey, Sir James

Redmond, William (Clare)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Jordan, Jeremiah

Rickett, J. Compton

Brunner, Sir Thos Tomlinson

Kay-Shuttleworth,RtHnSirU.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Kearley, Hudson E.

Robson, William Snowdon

Burns, John

Kilbride, Denis

Roche, John (East Galway)

Burt, Thomas

Kinloch, Sir John George S.

Schwann, Charles E.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Labouchere, Henry

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Caldwell, James

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Souttar, Robinson

Causton, Richard Knight

Leng, Sir John

Spicer, Albert

Cawley, Frederick

Lewis, John Herbert

Steadman, William Charles

Clough, Walter Owen

Lloyd-George, David

Stevenson, Francis S.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Logan, John William

Strachey, Edward

Crilly, Daniel

Macaleese, Daniel

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Daly, James

M'Cartan, Michael

Tennant, Harold John

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Dermott, Patrick

Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

Dillon, John

M'Ghee, Richard

Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Wallace, Robert (Perth)

Doogan, P. C.

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

Duckworth, James

Maddison, Fred.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Ellis, T. Edw. (Merionthsh.)

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Wedderburn, Sir William

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)

Weir, James Galloway

Fenwick, Charles

Moulton, John Fletcher

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Murnaghan, George

Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

Flynn, James Christopher

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wilson, John (Govan)

Gilhooly, James

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Connor, A. (Donegal)

Yoxall, James Henry

Gold, Charles

O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Haldane, Richard Burdon

O'Kelly, James

Mr. Davitt and Dr. Robert Ambrose.

Hammond, John (Carlow)

O'Malley, William

NOES.

Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

Fisher, William Hayes

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Mount, William George

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Folkestone, Viscount

Murray, Rt.Hn. A. G. (Bute)

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Forster, Henry William

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Myers, William Henry

Bagot, Captain J. FitzRoy

Galloway, William Johnson

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Gedge, Sydney

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Baldwin, Alfred

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Balfour, Rt.Hn. A. J. (Mnc'r)

Gilliat, John Saunders

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Balfour, Rt.Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

Banbury, Frederick George

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Penn, John

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Pilkington, Richard

Bartley, George C. T.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Plunkett, Rt. Hn. Horace C.

Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Beach, Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Bris.)

Gretton, John

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Beach, W. W. B. (Hants.)

Gull, Sir Cameron

Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

Beckett, Ernest William

Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Purvis, Robert

Begg, Ferdinand Faithful

Hamilton, Rt.Hn.Lord George

Pym, C. Guy

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Hanbury, Rt.Hon. Robert W.

Rentoul, James Alexander

Bethell, Commander

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir M. W.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Heath, James

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

Bigwood, James

Heaton, John Henniker

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Bill, Charles

Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

Blakiston-Houston, John

Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)

Round, James

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelt'ham)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

Houldsworth, Sir W. Henry

Saunderson, Rt.Hn. Col. E. J.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Houston, R. P.

Savory, Sir Joseph

Butcher, John George

Howard, Joseph

Seely, Charles Hilton

Carlile, William Walter

Howell, William Tudor

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Cavendish, R. F. (N.Lancs.)

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew)

Cavendish,V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertf. E.)

Hutchinson, Capt. G.W.Grice-

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

Spencer, Ernest

Chelsea, Viscount

Kenyon, James

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

Clarke, Sir Edward(Plymouth)

Keswick, William

Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Lafone, Alfred

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

Lawrence,Sir,E.Durning-(Corn

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Lecky, Rt.Hon. William E. H

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Talbot, Rt.Hn.J.G.(Ox.Univ)

Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)

Thornton, Percy M.

Cruddas, William Donaldson

Llewelyn,Sir Dillwyn(Swansea

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Valentia, Viscount

Curzon, Viscount

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Ward, Hon. Robert A. (Crewe),

Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

Long, Rt.Hn. Walter(Liv'pool)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Webster, SirR.E. (I. of Wight)

Davenport, W. Bromley-

Lorne, Marquess of

Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Lowe, Francis William

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Doughty, George

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Whiteley, H.(Asht'n-u.-Lyne)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Macdona, John Cumming

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Doxford, William Theodore

Maclure, Sir John William

Williams, J. Powell-(Bir'ham)

Drage, Geoffrey

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

M'Calmont, Col.J.(Antrim,E.)

Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh,W.)

Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath)

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Marks, Henry Hananel

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

Fergusson,RtHnSir J. (Manc'r)

Middlemore, John T.

Wyndham, George

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Monckton, Edward Philip

Finch, George H.

Monk, Charles James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants.)

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

More, Robert Jasper

Main Question again proposed.

POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH SERVICES.
Another Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words—
"And we humbly represent to your Majesty that, in view of the great discontent existing among employés of the Postal and Telegraph Services, immediate inquiry should he made into the causes of complaint."
MR. STEADMAN: My object, Sir, in moving this Amendment, is to draw the attention of the House to the fact that discontent prevails in the Postal Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Petitions regarding their grievances have been sent from all parts of the country; some have been replied to, and some have been ignored, and hence the men have had to resort to the remedy of putting questions in this House. During the Recess many public meetings have been held in the large towns and cities of Great Britain, which have been numerously attended by sorters, postmen, and telegraphists only. On the 28th of last month a mass meeting was held at the Memorial Hall, in which all sections of the men in the service were represented. The speakers were selected from among themselves, and not a single Member of Parliament was present. I think the very fact that a meeting was held under such conditions, and that no Member of Parliament was invited to attend and speak—not even one like myself, who has often been looked upon as an agitator creating dissension in the ranks of labour—must prove conclusively that there do exist grievances which ought to be inquired into by the Government. It is not my intention this evening to go into matters of detail affecting wages and hours of labour, but, in reference to the postmen, I should like briefly to touch upon one section of the wages question. I find that they are divided for the purposes of wages into five classes, and it is in regard to two of these classes that I wish to draw attention, to a very striking anomaly. Strange to say, although Woolwich is included for municipal purposes in the county of London, it is excluded, so far as wages are concerned, by the Postal Department, and instead of Woolwich district men being put upon the same scale of pay as the London men
1524
they are put upon a lower scale agreed upon by the Tweedmouth Committee. I believe that it is the practice to fix the rate of wages, as far as possible, in accordance with the cost of living in the various districts. It is a well-known fact that in Woolwich rents are as high, if not higher than they are in some parts of the south and east of London, and, as a matter of fact, an artisan is unable to procure a six-roomed house fit to live in under 14s., 16s., or 18s. a week; he is also unable to procure two or three rooms under 7s. per week. Even taking London itself, where the maximum rate of wages applies, in the Notting Hill district the result of the Tweedmouth Report has been to reduce the maximum from 32s. to 30s. per week. That, I think, is a grievance which should be inquired into. But the hardest case of all, in my opinion, is that of the rural postman. He gets the lowest pay of all. He has to come down to the office in the morning, he takes his letters for delivery, and has to walk a distance of six, seven, or eight miles, however inclement the weather may be. When he gets to the end of his journey the probability is that the man is wet through, yet he has to wait in the village four or five hours before he can get his letters which he has to take back. I am prepared to admit that the Postmaster-General has granted a sum of 30s. per year as shelter money to the rural postman, and that that is in excess of what the Tweedmouth Committee recommended. But what, after all is 30s.? It works out at something like an average of 1¼d. per day, and where, I should like to know, is a man for that sum likely to get shelter where he can if necessary dry his clothes. I do not think there are many people who would be prepared to put themselves to the inconvenience of having a postman in their kitchen for four or five hours drying his clothes for a sum of l¼d. If the postman goes into a public-house—and I am told that there are some villages in the happy position of not possessing such an institution—he must, of course, spend money which he can ill afford out of his wages, because the publican naturally does not care to have a man loafing about in his bar who does not purchase any drink. The only alternative for the unfortunate postman, then, is that he shall stand about in his wet clothes in the open air until the time

1525
arrives for him to commence his return journey. The only remedy, in my humble opinion, is for the Government itself to find shelters for these men. They could withhold the allowance of 30s. per annum, and in a few years they would recoup themselves the cost of providing the shelters. Undoubtedly the present system of making an allowance does not give satisfaction, and it would be much better if the Government would provide the men with shelters such as are given by the London County Council to the Fire Brigade, and which only cost a few pounds. Then, again, the rural postman has another grievance. It may be that his district is so large that he cannot deliver his letters on foot, and then he has to provide a mail cart at his own expense. It may be, and probably is the case, that he has not the money wherewith to purchase a pony and cart. He has consequently to borrow a sum of £30 for the purpose, and when he has purchased it he has to keep it in repair, and he even has to paint it vermilion red at his own expense. All he gets in return is an allowance of 15s. per week. Now, I do not own horses myself, but I am a member of a local board, and my experience on that body is that it costs something like 5s. per day for every horse we have in our stables. Consequently, I say that 15s. per week is not sufficient to compensate the village postman for the extra expense of providing a horse, cart, and stabling. And remember that where he has to borrow the money with which to purchase the horse and cart, he has to repay capital as well as pay interest. I have known cases in which men have lost their animals through accident or sickness, and have been unable to get a farthing compensation from the Government to enable them to purchase another horse. I now come to a more important body of men in the service of the Department, namely, the telegraphists. A telegraph clerk is usually about 16½ years of age when he enters that branch of the service. He has to pass an examination, and five years elapses before he is put upon the staff, and then he commences with a minimum of £65 per year, or just over 25s. per week. Now, I served an apprenticeship of seven years in order to learn my trade, but when that period expired I started on the full maximum rate
1526
of pay which was recognised in the trade. Of course, if I could have got more I would have taken it, but, at any rate, I would not have accepted a penny less than the maximum of the recognised rate of wages in the trade. I maintain that these young fellows, by the very fact of their having to servo five years before they obtain proficiency in their business, are entitled to a higher rate of pay than that which is allowed to them by the State—£65. What is the maximum wage? They rise by yearly increments of £6 per annum up to £65 per annum. Previously, in Mr. Fawcett's time, when he was Postmaster-General, they rose to £190 per annum. It is quite true that £190 is paid now, but it is only paid to a few overseers. Now, what happens? Why, the moment that these men can enter into the service of any private company, they immediately leave our service, because the wages and the conditions of their work are very much better in the service of private companies. I quite admit that these men do not often leave our service; but that is because there are very few vacancies. But whenever there are vacancies then they do leave. My chief reason, however, for moving this Amendment is that these men should have the full rights of labour combination, as other organised workmen now enjoy in this country. It might be said that they are allowed to combine; well, we shall see what sort of combination is allowed by the Government. Sir William Harcourt, some years ago, stated that combination was the duty of all workmen, and
"civil servants will no doubt derive material benefit from combination in the same manner as other workmen."
In April, 1895, Mr. Arnold Morley, who was then Postmaster-General, in answer to a question put to him by Mr. MacDonald, one of the controllers, said that the officials of a Parliamentary Department were at liberty to combine in any way they thought proper; all the privileges unions enjoyed, and rightly enjoyed, were rightly accorded to the postal officials. Now, let us see how that is carried out. On July 1st, 1898, the Postal Telegraph

1527
Clerks' Association sent a civil letter to the Controller—
"We, the undersigned, beg most respectfully to ask you to receive us as a deputation to receive from us a petition, of which we enclose a copy."
The petition was signed by a large number of the staff; but what was the reply to that communication?" 23rd of July," the same year—
"With reference to the enclosed letter, I shall be happy to receive a deputation from members of the staff, but I cannot receive a deputation which comes from the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association."
Sir Spencer Walpole, in the evidence he gave before the Committee which inquired into this question, said that the men had a right of combination, but he would not allow intimidation either by the men themselves or the officials over them. Now, that is a principle with which I entirely concur and agree. I do not believe in the principle of intimidation being shown by either side; but I maintain that, so far as the Postal Service itself is concerned, the intimidation is all on one side; that the men themselves dare not, for the fear of losing their positions, ask their fellow men to join their organisation. Because, if he happens to be a nasty kind of man, he is likely to report them, and then they get instant dismissal. What about the official, last August, Mr. Ash? He complained to the medical officer of being unwell, and when the time was due for his increment to be increased, he was told by Mr. Felix Wright, the Sub-Controller, that it was proposed not to recommend that increase, and he was also subjected to a very severe cross-examination as to his connection with the Association. I want to know why, if intimidation is not to be allowed on the one hand, it should be allowed on the other? Not a word has been said to Mr. Felix Wright, and he still holds the position of Sub-Controller. I may say that Mr. Ash got his increment alter all; but why did he get it? Because the information was supplied to myself, and I immediately wrote to the Postmaster-General, and Mr. Ash immediately got his increment. And knowing him as I do, I believe that the Postmaster-General, the Duke of Norfolk, is at all times a gentleman,
1528
and if these matters came to his knowledge he would not, I believe, tolerate them for a moment. Then, take the case of Mr. Garland, who is the Secretary of the Association. At the time that the agitation was on last year in reference to the refreshments stuff, the Superintendent arrogated to himself the right of selecting from the men the representatives to appear before the Committee. Now, had the men through their organisation had the right, the very man whom the Superintendent left out of his selection, Mr. Garland, would have been the man who would have been selected by them. Now, take the question of Messrs. Cheeseman and Clery. In 1892 they were discharged. The only offence which they had committed was obeying the mandate of their Executive; and only last year Mr. Groves, the sorter, who was the Treasurer of the Fawcett Association, was politely told that ho would either have to give up his connection with that Association, or he would not be permitted to remain in the service. So much for the combination in labour which is allowed the men. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have myself for 25 years been a member of my own trade organisation, and the right of combination is a cardinal faith with me, and I claim in this House, as I claim outside, that the same rights of combination, with all their privileges, should be conceded to the 160,000 workmen of the Post Office that I, and other organised workers, enjoy at the present moment. In 1871 Parliament recognised our right of combination by passing the Trades Union Act. The Government itself has passed the Conciliation Act, which, if it means anything at all, means that there are always two sides to a question, and two parties to a dispute. In 1894 the organised workers of the City of London petitioned Lord Salisbury, who was then, as he is now, the Prime Minister of the country, and asked him to receive a deputation of organised workers to discuss the Eight Hours Question. Lord Salisbury wrote a polite reply, and invited us to meet him; and the right honourable Gentleman who is now the Leader of this House accompanied Lord Salisbury on that occasion. Not a word or condition of any kind was laid down as to who were to be the representatives, and no conditions were stated as

1529
to whom the men were to select, or whom they were not to select. They were left a free hand to select their own representatives, and as I was one of the representatives on that occasion I am able to speak with particular knowledge. I also maintain that any organised system of communication between Departmental chiefs and their servants must be a good thing, and if Unions were officially recognised by the Postmaster-General, I am prepared to say that it would save, not only him, but my honourable Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, and also the Members of this House, a considerable amount of time. Because then, instead of having to put questions down upon the paper, and wearying my honourable Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, the men themselves, through their own organisation, would be able to put their own grievances before the Postmaster-General, and, what is more, I believe the organised workers always select the very best men for the office. It has been stated that discipline must be maintained. Well, the Trades Unions of this country, through their officials, are the first to enforce discipline, whether their men are working for private bodies or for the Government itself. And I take it that, as a Prime Minister in this country, in selecting the Cabinet, selects the very best man he can find for the position, so it is with the body of organised workers, and so it would be consequently that discipline would be perhaps better maintained than it is at the present moment, and a good deal of time would be saved to the Postmaster-General and to the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. I am quite aware of and I have no doubt that the Secretary to the Treasury will mention, the fact of the Tweedmouth Committee; but I submit that that Committee was a failure, first, because of its composition, because its recommendations were not in accordance with the evidence put before it, because some of the grievances laid before it were not dealt with in the report, and because its findings created a large number of fresh grievances, and fomented the feeling which already existed without remedy being found. Lord Tweedmouth was the only impartial member on that Committee; the
1530
other members were chiefs of departments, skilled in all branches of economy and cutting down of expenses in their establishments. The fact of their being heads of departments, their sympathies, no matter how hardly they endeavoured to be impartial, have been with the chiefs of the Post Office, and not with employés. As a matter of fact, in no Court of Law would persons having a personal interest, such as these gentlemen had in this matter, be allowed to act as Judges. Therefore, on these grounds, the contention of the Committee that it was impartial was a complete farce. Now, the prosperity of the country, in my opinion, depends very largely upon the happiness of its people; and the prosperity and success of a gigantic commercial establishment, such as the Post and Telegraph Department is to-day, must largely depend upon the treatment meted out to the workmen and women employed in the Department. After all, though you may drive a nag, you will get more out of it by kindness than by brute force. My own experience of workmen is that the more kindly an employer treats them the more work the men will try to do for that employer with a good heart and spirit; but if a driver tries to drive them with brute force, the moment his back is turned the workmen will take advantage of that employer. Either these men have grievances, or they have not; but, at any rate, no harm would be done if a Committee were to be appointed to go into the case of discontent which now exists, and, as the Tweedmouth Committee was a failure because it was composed of only one impartial man, namely, Lord Tweedmouth, I am not going to ask this House to appoint a Committee of a similar character. As I say, the Committee which will give satisfaction, and satisfaction only, to the men who have now cause of complaint, is an entirely impartial Committee composed of honourable Members of this House, of which the Secretary to the Treasury should be Chairman. Sir, I believe I was out of order in my original Amendment in introducing the words, "that a Committee should be appointed"; and those words have been deleted; but, after all, that was merely my Amendment. The Postmaster-General is not a Member of this House, and I say of any Department em-

1531
ploying 160,000 hands, that the Chief of that Department should be a Member of this House. I am prepared to give the honourable Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury all the credit which is due to him, for I have never put a question down upon the paper but he has answered it to the best of his ability, and I know he is doing his level best to go into the matter; but he represents an entirely different Department in this House, a Department which tries to raise all the cash it can, no matter, if I may say so, whence it comes; and that being so, he is not able to answer as the Postmaster-General would be able to answer, and, I say, in a Department whose profit is something like three or four millions sterling per annum, there is room for improvement so far as the men who help to raise that profit are concerned, and neither the House of Commons, nor the public outside have a right to expect to make a profit of three or four millions sterling per annum at the expense of the sweating of labour, as it is being sweated in this Department to-day. We talk of freeing slaves in other parts of the world, but we have got to put our own House in order first. God knows that there are white slaves enough in this country, and these are the men that we ought to free first before we talk about freeing slaves in other parts of the world. In conclusion, I appeal to the honourable Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to accept the Amendment in the spirit in which I move it, and to promise the House that he will have an independent and impartial committee appointed to inquire into this matter. I have great pleasure in moving the Amendment which stands in my name upon the paper.
On the return of Mr. SPEAKER after the usual interval,
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise with very great pleasure indeed to second the Amendment of the honourable Member for the Stepney Division. Bearing in mind the fact that he has gone so exhaustively into the complaints of the Post Office employés, I do not propose to detain the House by following upon the lines the honourable Member has taken, as I do not hope to make out a better case
1532
than he has already done. Taking a, broad view of the case, Sir—I speak with the full authority, and at the request of the Post Office employés in Ireland—I say that they have an excellent case for the inquiry they ask, and that the Post Office authorities would be very ill-advised indeed in declining it. I can, of course, only speak on behalf of the Irish employés, who make common cause with the other employés of the Post Office in Great Britain, whose grievances are more or less the same. They demand an inquiry into their grievances in the hope that they will be explained before an impartial Committee of this House, as I think they ought to be, in order that Parliament may find a remedy. Sir, I say that the Post Office officials would be very ill-advised in refusing this inquiry. We admit that there has been a Committee for a comparatively small number of years, which sat to investigate former grievances of the Post Office employés, but we deny that its composition was such as to give satisfaction to those whose grievances were inquired into. I am not prepared, Sir, nor have I the desire in the least, to cast any reflection upon any of the officials of the Post Office who sat on that Committee, but the glaring fact is before the House that while it was presided over by Lord Tweedmouth, the other four members of the Commission, or at any rate the greater part of them, were the heads of the very department with reference to which complaint was made. Post Office officials are, taking them at their best, only human, and the employés confidence in a tribunal composed of those who had been over them while those complaints were growing up must have been naturally shaken. Taking the ordinary man of the world, he does not feel comfortable in submitting a grievance for adjustment to persons whom he believes, rightly or wrongly, to be prejudiced against him. Therefore, I say they have an excellent case in throwing themselves, so to speak, upon the mercy of Parliament, and asking that their grievances shall be remedied. Grievances they still have, and from my experience of the Post Office system, I have come to the conclusion that they have been intensified rather than alleviated. The employés ask

1533
that this House of Commons shall now appoint an impartial Committee to inquire into these grievances, and if it is the contention of the Post Office that there are no grievances, I know of no easier way of proving it. Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out by the honourable Member for the Stepney Division, there are no fewer than 160,000 employés of the State who make these demands. I take leave to say that they are 160,000 employés of the State who are most in touch with the people, who are most popular with the people, and who are in reality most useful to the people. It would be a very serious matter indeed if the Post Office took up the position of denying the existence of the grievances, and of refusing inquiry into them. Sir, briefly put, the officials complain of insufficient pay, and unsatisfactory rules with regard to promotion and pensions. If the Post Office authorities are satisfied that there is no case under any one of these headings, then I repeat, Sir, that they have the remedy in their own hands, and can, within the next week, appoint a Committee of Inquiry into these alleged grievances and report to the House, and they will, at all events, satisfy the employés as to their willingness to hear their case and to allow them, if they have a case, to make it; and then, of course, it will be for Parliament to say what remedy should be applied. Some time back I had the honour of being on the Departmental Committee of Inquiry into some of the grievances that arose, and personally I have to say that no one would think of questioning the spirit of fairness which actuated the Duke of Norfolk, the Postmaster-General. I should perhaps say more if the noble Lord were present; the Secretary to the Treasury only is present; but I certainly say, as far as my knowledge is concerned, that there is no one more willing to hear complaints, and no one more willing to take the trouble to try and meet them. Having said so much, I am sure I shall not be misunderstood when I say that I should have felt in a more independent position as a member of that Committee if I had not had at the same table with me a number of permanent officials. In my opinion those permanent officials should have occupied the position of witnesses and
1534
not of judges. I am quite satisfied that that is the feeling of the Post Office officials. Rightly or wrongly—and again I say I would not think of imputing other than a spirit of fair play to any of the permanent officials I happen to know—the Post Office employés have not that confidence in a tribunal composed of permanent officials that they have in a Committee appointed by this House from among its own Members. They look upon the permanent official as a permanent danger to their peace, well-being and comfort in the service. Sir, I do not think that I need trespass at any greater length upon the time of the House. As I have said, I accept, and I am sure the Post Office officials will accept, the exhaustive statement made by the honourable Member for Stepney. Not only can I speak on behalf of the Irish employés, but I can speak—and I do speak here to-night—with the authority and at the request of my colleagues who compose the Irish Independent Party, with whom I act. I go farther and say that, although I am not directly authorised to say so, there is not one of the 80 Nationalist Members who sit in this House who do not favour this reasonable demand of the Post Office employés. Sir, I conclude by urging upon the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to bring the Debate to a close this evening by announcing on behalf of the Government whom he represents that the demand of these employés shall be conceded, or that, at all events, the Government are not afraid, whether there is a grievance or not, of giving them an opportunity of stating their case fully and fairly before an independent Committee.
COLONEL DALBIAC: I do not propose to take up the time of the House by going into all the arguments and facts brought forward by the honourable Member for Stepney in moving this Amendment, but I would, Sir, appeal to the right honourable Gentleman who represents the Post Office in this House that he should give us his sympathy in this matter, and grant the independent inquiry which is asked for in this Amendment. This is not an ordinary agitation of men asking for larger wages or better conditions of ser-

1535
vice. This is a demand by practically the whole of the employés of the Post Office that the conditions of service should be reasonable, and that they shall be treated with the ordinary justice which all employés have the right to demand. I would like to refer more especially to certain grievances of the postal and telegraph staff. Now, I have no doubt that the right honourable Gentleman will tell us that the main grievance of the postal and telegraph clerk has been already dealt with—I refer to' the maximum having been put down from £190 to £160 in the case of the five years man. Now, Sir, of course we shall be told that the maximum has not been reduced from £190 to £160 at all, but that it is still in the power of everybody to obtain the maximum of £190. Well, Sir, I maintain that practically the reverse is the case. It is still possible, undoubtedly, for every man—I say "possible"—to attain that maximum, but it is only probable that a very small number will ever reach it. Formerly, when these men entered the service, they had a reasonable chance of reaching a class of which that was the maximum, but now a further class has been formed whose maximum goes to £190, and that is a superior class. But only a few men are selected, and, therefore, only a few out of the bulk who join the service have an opportunity now of reaching that maximum. Therefore, I think that these men have a right to demand an inquiry, and that they are in the right when they allege that their maximum has been reduced from £190 to £160. Then again, Sir, in the case of the five years men, we shall be told, I know, that they have got a great boon in the fact that they can now earn no fewer than three increments, increasing their pay to a very large extent. Well, Sir, it is quite possible, I admit, that there are a considerable number to whom the concession was granted with one hand, but with the other hand it was made practically impossible to a very large number of these men. It is quite impossible for any of the female staff to earn increments. It is also perfectly impossible for the men who are the employés, to a very large extent, of the United Kingdom, to obtain any technical knowledge of telegraphy, because there are no technical schools in those places which
1536
they could attend, and now I hear that the Central Technical College in London has been closed, I suppose because the Post Office found that perhaps too large a number of men gained certificates there, and so obtained the extra increments. Therefore I think, Sir, that on these grounds alone this portion of the telegraph staff have at least a right to demand that there should be some independent inquiry into their condition. Their maximum has practically been reduced from £190 to £160 in the case of the five years men in whose behalf the Tweedmouth Committee specially recommended that some increased advantage should be granted, because their condition was inferior to that of any other employés in a private firm; for they had been granted a concession, I say, with one hand, and with the other hand that concession had been taken away, or withheld at least from a very large number of them. Well, Sir, all these men ask is that they should have an independent inquiry, and I think it is perfectly reasonable that an inquiry of this sort should be held entirely by an independent Committee. Only last year, or the year before, the right honourable Gentleman and the Postmaster-General held an inquiry in this House into the matter. But, Sir, I maintain that where you have a tribunal composed of officials on the one hand, or of the men on the other, it is unfair for one to give judgment against the other. All these men ask is that they shall have an absolutely independent body to conduct the inquiry into their case, to examine both sides, and to give an absolutely independent judgment. These men are as loyal to their official duties and as loyal to their department as men to be found anywhere. All they ask for, in my opinion, is simple justice, and I am perfectly prepared to say that, as far as the telegraph clerks are concerned, they will abide most loyally by any decision to which the independent Committee may come. I sincerely hope the right honourable Gentleman will see his way to give at least a sympathetic answer, so that we shall not be compelled to push this Amendment to a Division.
MR. SPICER: I desire to say just a few words in support of the Amendment which has been moved

1537
by my honourable Friend the Member for Stepney. I have no doubt that a great number of Members on this side of the House have, like myself, received the various documents and statements that have been issued by the employés of the Post Office in connection with this dispute. I have also listened from time to time to the speeches of the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, and I have listened not only to his answers to the different questions, but. I have noticed his actions, and I desire to recognise most fully what I believe is the perfectly fair spirit that has actuated him in this matter. But I cannot shut my eyes to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that in spite of his action and that of the Duke of Norfolk, the Postmaster-General, to try and satisfy the men, this conflic goes on, and it not only goes on, but seems to grow. It is perfectly clear that the Post Office employés did not like the Tweedmouth Commission. I confes I am not altogether surprised at thei not liking it. After all, Lord Tweed mouth was the only independent man o the Committee, in a certain sense. I am not in the least attributing any bad motives or improper action to the other gentlemen who formed that Committee, but after all they were simply in their position because they happened to be connected with departments of the Civil Service. It is perfectly clear there are great complaints, especially amongst the sorters and the telegraphists, a body, I am told, who amount to something like 50,000. Well, Sir, as an employer of labour, I have always held the principle that when there is a dispute between employer and employés, as a final resort, the employés have a right to approach their employer. I cannot help thinking that if that principle were more clearly recognised and acted on, we should be saved many of the great industrial disputes which we have in this country. Of course, I recognise fully, as anyone must who has any connection with a large industry, that, as a rule, the negotiations must take place through the managers and heads of the departments. But maintain that when those managers, when those heads of departments, have failed in coming to a satisfactory conclusion with the employés, then, before the matter comes to an open conflict, those
1538
who are responsible as employers should be willing to come into personal intercourse and negotiation with the employés. Now, it seems to me that this dispute has arrived at that stage. There has been an inquiry which, as I say, apart from Lord Tweedmouth, was conducted mainly by those who are connected with the different departments. There has also been negotiation between those who feel aggrieved and the Secretary to the Treasury and the Duke of Norfolk. But they have not come to a satisfactory conclusion, and, after all, a body of 50,000 men have a right to consideration at our hands. If the heads of the Postal Departments and the Postmaster-General have failed to find a solution of the difficulty with the employés, they should have a right of appeal to this House, because, after all, we are the masters of the situation. That is not an extreme position to take. I cannot help remembering that in the year 1895 the wishes and intentions of the War Department were, set aside in the celebrated division which made so much difference in the aspect of this House—the celebrated cordite division. That was a case in which the House felt justified in over-riding the intentions and the actions of the Head of a Government Department. They did it in that case, and it seems to me this is another case where the House has a right to say that those who have tried to settle this dispute having failed, this House should appoint an independent Committee, composed of Members of this House, to go into this question and try to settle it satisfactorily. I admit that it will be a thankless task for those who undertake it. Those who undertake it may not come to all the conclusions which the employés of the Post Office might desire, but I believe that an independent Committee of this House will come to just conclusions, and I am informed by those who are taking a deep interest in this question, as representing the employés, that they will accept the decision of an independent Committee of this House. It is for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I venture to say these few words on behalf of the Amendment, and I trust that the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, though he may not be able to accept this Amendment, because it would, of course, take the form of a vote

1539
of want of confidence, will give such a reply as to indicate that he is willing to appoint this Committee, so that this Amendment may not be pressed to a Division.
SIR J. LENG: Mr. Speaker, the honourable Members who have addressed the House on this subject have spoken on behalf of the postal servants and telegraphists in the metropolis. As a Scotch Member, I desire to say that in Scotland also there is among the servants of the Postal and Telegraph departments very considerable dissatisfaction. Only a few months ago the postmen and telegraphists in the city which I represent addressed a very temperate and care fully-prepared memorial to the Postmaster-General, setting forth their grievances with regard especially to classification and increment of wages, and to what appeared to them to be the un reasonable differences between the rate of pay in Dundee as compared with that of larger places. They showed incontestably that the rents and cost of living in Dundee were quite as high as in Edinburgh and Glasgow, while the wages of the Dundee men were apportioned on a lower scale. I do not intend to occupy the time of the House further than to say that, as you have already had representations made on behalf of the telegraphists of England and of Ireland, I desire to call attention to the fact that the same feeling exists in regard to the same grievances in Scotland. I would associate myself with honourable Members who have previously spoken in expressing the hope that the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will agree to appoint a Select Committee of this House to go into this question. I am certain that if the right honourable Gentleman were himself in the chair of that Committee, if there was a fair representation of Members from both sides of the House on the Committee, and if the facts that could be brought before the Committee were, as they would be, fairly considered by that Committee, its decision and report would be respected by the servants in the Postal and Telegraph Departments, and would be accepted in quite a different spirit to that in which the report and decision of the Departmental Committee have been received. Departmental Committees represent officialdom. What is wanted in
1540
this case is fairness, independence, and common sense applied to questions of this kind without regard to special departmental views. We have all the greatest confidence in the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, and we should be glad to see him apply his thoroughly fair and equitable mind to the consideration of the grievances of the servants of the Post Office.
CAPTAIN NORTON: Mr. Speaker, I so often address this House on questions of this nature in the interests of Government employés that I desire to say but very few words on this Amendment. There cannot be a shadow of doubt that great dissatisfaction exists throughout the entire Postal Service, and more especially in London, and that that dissatisfaction, far from decreasing since the Tweedmouth Committee, has tended to increase. I am quite confident that the only way to put a stop to the growing dissatisfaction in the service is to appoint a Committee of Inquiry. I am positively ashamed of the number of questions which I have put to the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury in connection with this subject, and I am bound to admit that the right honourable Gentleman has done almost everything in his power to meet the demands of the officials, but I venture to assert that if the Archangel Gabriel were in the right honourable Gentleman's place he could not disabuse the minds of the postal employés of the fact that they have not received justice. I gladly admit that the right honourable Gentleman and the Departmental Committee did much for the employés, but what they did seems to have been entirely thrown away, owing to the fact that they have lost confidence. It is the Dreyfus case over again. An honourable Member says, "Not so bad as that." Well, in the minds of the postal employés it is. A certain section of them believe that they have not had a fair trial, just as a certain section of the French people believe that Dreyfus has not had a fair trial. I would be one of the first Members of this House to support the right honourable Gentleman in maintaining the strictest discipline throughout the Postal Service. I have impressed upon the mind of every postal employé who has approached me the fact that discipline is not only

1541
necessary, but more necessary in the Postal Service than it would be in a private concern, and I do not think the right honourable Gentleman will have much difficulty in enforcing whatever discipline is necessary for the welfare of the public service. I should like to say one word in favour of the London men. The telegraph clerks allege a breach of faith in an alteration of the conditions upon which they entered^ the service, and that is peculiarly a question for an independent Committee to determine. The honourable Member for Dundee said that the question of increment of wages was one of great moment in the large towns in Scotland. It is of infinitely greater moment in London. The right honourable Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will remember the evidence that was given before us on the Departmental Committee. One young man stated that when he entered the service he had to exist on a certain small sum, and had no relatives with whom he could live. One member of the Committee said, "But you lived on the sum, did you not?" The young man, with tears in his eyes, replied, "Lived on it! No, I starved on it." The question of increment of wages is one of the utmost importance to the poorer classes of employés, who are hard pressed by the cost of living in London and large towns, and I hope the right honourable Gentleman will consent to the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry.
MR. SCHWANN: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to occupy the time of the House to any great extent, but I heartily endorse much that has been said by those who have preceded me. Two or three years ago, when Mr. Arnold Morley proposed the appointment of the Departmental Committee, I suggested that one of the rank and file of the Post Office should be added to the Committee. It was felt by the Post Office employés that they would like to feel certain that the case had been looked into fully from their point of view. That suggestion was not adopted. The Tweedmouth Committee sat, and the employés of the Post Office, though they have received some advantages, are not satisfied, and they ask this House and the Postmaster-General to appoint a Select Committee of independent Members, who shall give an impartial opinion
1542
on the subjects laid before them. Well, I heartily support that suggestion, and I hope we shall hear some satisfactory acceptance of that proposal from the right honourable Gentleman who represents the Post Office in this House, and to whose courtesy and admirable business qualities I should like to bear my testimony. The same observations apply to the Postmaster-General. In fact, his manner was so gracious to the men in August, two years ago, that he misled them to think they were going to get many advantages which they did not get. I trust that not only will the right honourable Gentleman accept the suggestion for a Committee, but that he will give the employés explicit information as to how far their right of combination extends. At the present moment this is in a state of the greatest confusion in their minds. Mr. Arnold Morley wrote to them stating that they were to be "allowed to combine in any way they liked," but the present Postmaster-General says, in a letter he addressed to them, that they have a "large measure of combination" allowed to them. There is all the difference in the world between full power to combine and a "fair measure of combination." At present the employés are in a very unsatisfactory position, because everything is referred to the particular local postmaster. If he is an amiable man, he acknowledges the association of the employés, but if he is not he throws discredit upon it, refuses to receive its officials, and sends an answer back through anyone he likes, and not through the association officials. Well, I think it would be desirable, both in the interests of the postmasters and the men themselves, that there should be an exact line drawn as to how far their rights go. The men claim absolute and full civil rights, like any other person not in the service. That seems a pretty large demand, and I think it should be gone into by the Select Committee that has been suggested. They could consider all the other public Services, and see how far civil rights were accorded to employés. I think that would be one special object of the Committee, and I trust that we shall find that the Postmaster-General accepts the suggestion. I have nothing further to say, but I hope we shall hear something satisfactory upon the subject.
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBUBY,): The honourable Member who introduced this Amendment in his speech referred to two topics: one was the question of the discontent, and the other was the question of wages. Now, I propose to deal with the question of wages first, because it is principally in connection with that that he asks for this Select Committee. Well, now, I think those Members of the House who have heard the speeches that have been made will notice that the main argument for a fresh inquiry is that there, is discontent. If there is discontent really existing, honourable Members ought to have been able to point out the causes and the particular class of grievances complained of, but I have heard nothing new whatever in this respect during the discussion to-night. These questions which have been brought forward have already been thoroughly threshed out before the Tweedmouth Committee. I have already explained in this House the answer to those grievances, but I am perfectly willing again to go through them. It does seem to me a somewhat remarkable fact that out of an army of 160,000 men it is only possible for honourable Members, who have probably been inundated with pamphlets on this subject, to bring forward the few small, almost local, grievances which have been mentioned in this House to-night. I take the case of the honourable Member for Stepney, that of the Woolwich postmen, who argued that Woolwich was part of London, and that, therefore, those men ought to be paid at the London rate. Well, the honourable Member knows that the further you get from the centre of London the more those wages go down. That is in accordance with the established system. But, after all, the general rule as regards postmen is this—it is the case of postmen that the honourable Member was referring to, and it does not apply to sorters and telegraphists—that their wages vary according to the population of the towns they serve, and that is a rough-and-ready test. At the same time, if there are exceptional circumstances in regard to any town which render the cost of living exceptionally high, the Post
1544
Office is always willing to take that into consideration. I do not know whether that is the case at Woolwich or Dundee, which is another case that has been mentioned. The second grievance of the honourable Member is the case of the rural postmen, who are not a very large class. Their grievance was that the Post Office, in addition to their salaries, which have been fixed as fair by the Tweedmouth Committee, had offered these men the small sum of 10s. a year to enable them to find shelter at the end of their day's walk. We all know that all the rural postmen walk a considerable distance—I think six miles is the maximum—and before they start back with their letters they are a considerable time in the village, and it was suggested that it would be only fair to offer them a small nut, in order that they might find shelter during those two or three hours. The honourable Member also said that in nearly all these cases they could put up a hut for the use of these men at a much better and cheaper rate, and that that should be the general system adopted by the Post Office. Well, now with regard to the rural postmen who have mail carts. In regard to these the honourable Member made two observations which are not quite in accordance with the facts. In the first place, he said that most of these men were allowed 15s. for a horse and cart, whereas it ranges from 15s. to 20s., and the average is nearer 20s.
MR. STEADMAN: When I made that statement I was referring to my own practical knowledge of the cost of a horse under one of our local Boards, of which I am a member.
MR. HANBURY: Well, I think the honourable Member must know that to keep a horse it ought certainly to be above 15s. a week, and, therefore, I think 20s. a week is a fair allowance.
MR. STEADMAN: Then there is the stabling.
MR. HANBURY: Then there is the question raised by the honourable Member for North Camberwell, and that is the old question of the five years telegraphists. Now, to begin with, a large portion of the Post Office staff has not even been mentioned in this discussion. It has not been alleged that there is a single grievance on the part of the

1545
sorters. Now I come to the telegraphists, which is the only other remaining branch, and their complaints are limited to two classes. With regard to the five years' men, their complaint is that the maximum pay of operating telegraphists ought to be £190, instead of £160. Now what is a five years' man? He is a man who, as a rule, is 21 years of age, who has been apprenticed at the cost of the State; and not only has he been apprenticed at the cost of the State, but he has had money paid to him during his apprenticeship; whereas apprentices generally are under a very different system to that. At 21 he receives 24s. a week, which I believe is what is called the living wage in London. It is said that he ought to have more than that, because by the end of the five years he has been engaged he is a skilled man. Well, I perfectly admit that he is a skilled man, and at the end of that period he probably knows as much of his work as he will know 20 years after, and although 20 years afterwards he practically knows no more of his work, and is no more useful a servant, he has been during all those years receiving an additional increment of £6 a year. I say, therefore, that that man is very fairly well paid, and, in fact, well paid. Telegraphists talk as if this operating work was a superior kind of skilled work, but it is only, after all, a superior kind of type-writing. These telegraphists are rather inclined to look down upon the sorters, but, as far as I have been able to study the question, I really believe that sorting requires more skill than the ordinary telegraphic work. In addition to this, when the conference was held before the Duke of Norfolk and myself, we especially tried to meet the case of these five years men. It was given in evidence before the Tweedmouth Committee that, after five years' service, these men would get less wages than they would have got in the open market, and although it was felt, and they also admitted it, that their pay, spread over the whole of the service was adequate, we waived these difficulties, and we specially dealt with these men. We decided upon two things. We said that instead of waiting till they were 24, as the Tweedmouth Committee said they must do, we would allow men at 21 to qualify for what is known as the double increment, which is an additional in-
1546
crement yearly to their salaries of £6 a year, if they will learn to do sorting. That is on the whole much lighter work than telegraphic work, and, in addition to that, it will be a great advantage to the Post Office service generally, because it will enable the holidays, which are now limited too much to the winter months, to be fairly spread and divided, and will allow a larger number of holidays to be given in the summer time. It will also have the further effect of doing away with split duties. Remember that the telegraphists will come in under that arrangement, and it is eminently to their advantage as regards split duties, and it gives them an additional £6 a year. Of course, there is no extension of their hours, and they are simply asked to do a different kind of work, which is not extra work. In addition to that, we laid it down that anybody who could pass the technical examination in telegraphy would get an additional £6 a year income. Therefore, if these men qualify as sorters, and pass this technical examination, at 21 they not only get 24s. a week, with an annual increment of £6 a year, but by qualifying for these two services they get an additional increment of £12 a year. Therefore, on the whole, I do not think that they have very much to grumble at. And now, with regard to what is alleged to be a breach of faith, namely, that the men who cannot pass to what is called the senior class, and who have to stop at £160 a year, unless they are specially selected for the superior service—which has always been the case. No hope has ever been held out to any of these men that they would pass direct into the senior class and reach £190 a year without showing some special qualification. That is, after all, only reasonable. I perfectly admit, with the Tweedmouth Committee, that this senior class has been doing too much supervising work, but what we—the Duke of Norfolk and myself—did was to arrange that there should be a larger number of supervisors appointed of both classes, and we also did away with the technical examination for this class, and the result is that these men, at their own request, now pass into this superior class by selection instead of by examination, which is now practically limited to men doing superior operating work and to a few men who do supervising duties. We have, therefore, largely increased their

1547
chances of promotion by increasing the number of supervisors. Therefore, again, I confess that I have looked very carefully into the merits of the case of these men, and I cannot see that they have got any case. I should like, if the House will bear with me, to go more closely into this matter, because this alleged discontent has been going on for a long time, and I should like to ask, What are the solid grounds for asking for this inquiry? When a fresh inquiry is asked for, you have a right to ask for some new facts and some reason for it, and also we should have some guarantee that when the verdict is given the men will acquiesce in it. We have had already two inquiries within the last two years, one before the Lord Tweedmouth Committee, and the other between the Duke of Norfolk and myself. As to the facts, I think it is admitted that they have all been brought out. The evidence given before the Tweedmouth Committee consisted of about 1,200 pages of closely-printed matter, and those honourable Members who did us the honour of sitting on that conference with us will admit, I think, that we did our best to go thoroughly into every question which came before us. There are, therefore, really no new facts to be brought out, and all that is asked for now is a new judgment upon those facts by some other body. It has been said that neither of these bodies were competent to deal with the subject, but if this question were raked up again are the men willing to forego those advantages which these two bodies have already given them in case the verdict of the new tribunal is adverse to them? Is there any legitimate ground of complaint against either of these tribunals or could they be objected to because they had not been sufficiently liberal? The Tweedmouth Committee added to the salaries of the Postal Department no less than £300,000 a year, which is now in full operation. That, I think, was a considerable addition to the salaries of that Department. But we have had a further inquiry, and so anxious were we that there should not be a single cause of grievance left anywhere that we again added £80,000 a year to the £300,000, and I think that sum of £380,000 a year is a considerable addition to the salaries of these men. I am, I confess, not quite sure that we did
1548
not go too far, because by increasing these salaries we are bringing into this service an entirely new social class; you are bringing in men who are perhaps socially a little above their work, and those men naturally have a standard of living and requirements which are not essential to men doing work of this kind. If we are going to raise the salaries more and more you will get a higher social class in the service, and there will be no limit to the demands made upon us. There is also this curious point with regard to the Post Office, and that is that the various branches in the Postal Department look upon one another with extreme jealousy. The postman says—"I ought to have the same pay as the sorter"; the telegraphist says—"It is positively cruel to put me on the same footing and pay me the same salary as the sorter," for the telegraphist thinks he is a much more important official than the sorter. Then you get the postmen saying that they ought to be brought up to the level of the sorter, and so on. We have heard again the usual story about the stinginess of the Treasury, but for once in a way the Treasury has been generous in this matter, for we accepted, without reservation, the whole of the proposals both of the Tweedmouth Committee and of the subsequent conference, and every sixpence recommended by those two bodies to be paid to these men the Treasury at once agreed to give. Well, then, the only possible grounds for asking for this new inquiry would be that the two former inquiries were not accepted at the time. I see the honourable Member for Manchester just below the Gangway, and I would remind him that Mr. Arnold Morley, when he granted the Tweedmouth Committee, stated that they were not exactly the class of persons he would put on. He said he would have put on the Secretary for the Post Office, and as for the remaining members, he would have the executive officers. Well, the Committee was nominated in strict accordance with the promise given by Mr. Arnold Morley, and one of the first Members to jump up to congratulate the right honourable Gentleman upon this was the honourable Member for Manchester. He said it would be perfectly absurd to ask for a Royal Commission, and that this Committee was just what they wanted. Well, that was the opinion that came from every section of the

1549
House. Then Ave have the statement that the conference between the Postmaster-General and myself was not one that was acceptable to the House, but that conference was suggested by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean. It certainly was accepted by the House, and those Member most interested in it did us the honour of coming to sit with us on that conference. They had also opportunities of examining the witnesses just as we had. Well, now, the Duke of Norfolk came to this decision, and by that conference we added £80,000 a year to the of these men. Then it is said—"But after all you ought to have a Sale Committee of the House of Commons." I say that there is no reason whatever for any further inquiry. We have had two inquiries, and they were no accepted; but what guarantee have we that these men will accept the decision of the House of Commons, because they have already rejected the decision of two Committees. They rejected the decision of the first Committee because it was official. The honourable Member for Stepney has said that Lord Tweedmouth was the only impartial man on it, because he was not a permanent official. Well, the Duke of Norfolk and myself are not permanent officials, and therefore we are just as impartial as Lord Tweedmouth. Now, what are the objections to a House of Commons Committee? One objection, I think, would be raised by the Post Office people themselves, because in a pamphlet issued on the telegraph troubles by Mr. Garland, who has taken a prominent part in the agitation against these grievances, I read that he implies that Members of Parliament could not understand the technicalities of the work. Sir, I doubt really, after all, whether the House of Commons would be regarded by these Post Office people with the supreme satisfaction which has been expressed by some of the honourable Gentlemen opposite. But, after all, is it wise that the House of Commons should in these purely departmental questions of administration undertake this work. I say, as a general principle, it is a mistake. If you cannot trust a Department, or the heads of a Department, to administer the affairs of that Department then they ought not to be there at all, but it is quite impossible for the House of Commons to go into all
1550
these technicalities, and I know no Department where the work is more technical and more complicated than the Post Office. The Treasury work is supposed to be hard to learn, but the technicalities of the Post Office is about the most difficult job I ever had, and I do not think a Select Committee would be really able to get to the bottom of this matter. But, after all, we must recollect another fact, and it is this: that the Civil Service is a great deal too much inclined to attempt to put pressure upon Members of Parliament. That is a very bad system, upon which we ought to put our foot. It is bad enough when it is brought to bear upon the House as a whole, but what would happen with a Select Committee of the House? You would have the resentment of these Civil servants focussed and concentrated upon the unfortunate Members of that Committee, and I do not think it would act more independently or impartially than those two bodies which have sat already.
MR. STEADMAN: Surely the Post Office employés have the same right to appeal to this House as any other men?
MR. HANBURY: I propose to deal with that matter in a later portion of my speech. I should like the House really to know what has been the increase in the wages of these men during the last few years. I take these figures from a very useful return issued on the motion, I think, of the honourable Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow. Now, I find that in 1872 the average wages of a sorter in London—that is to say the wages of the men half way up the scale, for that is the fairest way of taking the average—was 22s. 10d.; in 1881, it was 28s. 1d.; in 1890, 34s.; and in 1897, 39s. 9d. That shows that you had a rise from 22s. 10d. in 1872 to 39s. 9d. in 1897. That does not include the very large double increments to which I have referred, and it does not, of course, include the enormous number of special advantages which the servants of the State enjoy, and which are not enjoyed by anyone outside. Then, again, I take the wages of the telegraphists. In 1872 the average wage of a telegraphist was 27s. 4d.; in 1881, 32s. 8d.; in 1890, 35s. 5d.; and in 1897, 38s. 9d. Therefore, again you have a very considerable

1551
increase. Well, now, let me take the case of the postmen.
MR. SPICER: May I ask whether their efficiency has also increased?
MR. HANBURY: I am bound to say that I do not suppose it has in proportion to the increase in the salaries. I do not think that the work of the operating telegraphist is, at any rate, difficult. The work of the sorters may have increased, and it is to be noted that these are the very men who complain the least. Now, take the case of the postmen; again the postmen have had during those years very considerable advantages. They have had, in the first place, their maxima increased by 2s., and classification has been abolished; that is to say a man can rise to the maximum simply by good conduct and length of service, and no special qualification is required. The number of his properties have been increased, and he has had additional allowances for boots and for clothing. His sick pay has been largely increased, his stripes have been raised from three to six during the last two years, and he has had considerable addition to his clothing. Take the postman in Glasgow. What is his position at the present moment? At 19 years of age he gets 18s. a week, and that salary rises by increases of 1s. 6d. a year up to 30s. At 26 years of age that man is getting £78 a year. Most people would say that that is that man's total wage, and, no doubt, if he were working in the outside service in the employ of a private employer that would practically represent the whole of his pay. But that does not represent the whole of the pay in the case of a postman. In the first place, he gets two suits of clothing, and every two years an overcoat and cape; and the yearly value of these was calculated before the Tweedmouth Committee at nearly £4 or £3 18s. 6d. He also gets an allowance for boots valued at £1 1s. a year, and besides this he has 14 days' holiday a year, during which time he is paid his wages, which is not the case with an ordinary workman, and this is worth £3 10s. He may also get six stripes, but if he only gets three they are worth an additional £7 16s.per annum. He gets Christmas boxes, which I am told in Scotland are only worth £5 5s. a year, but which in England amount
1552
to some £13. In addition he gets a pension at the age of 58; supposing he enters the service at 18 years of age and does, therefore, 40 years' service, he gets a pension of 23s. for life, and if he had to purchase that annuity he would have to pay the society from which he purchased it £6 13s. 4d. per annum. Therefore, though the wages of a postman are nominally £78 a, year, they really amount to about £110, and it is not fair to compare the wages of the workmen of the State to those of workmen outside. The workmen outside get their fair wages, whereas the workmen of the State get a percentage more. If I do not detain the House too long I should like to explain this as fully as I can. A good deal is said about the payment the Post Office ought to make. It is said:—
"You ought to pay these men well, because the Post Office makes a large profit."
The Post Office is a monopoly, and it is only natural that it should make a large profit; but with regard to the very men who complain most, "the telegraphistsl," that is the very branch of the Post Office that we work at a loss. Therefore, it is not fair for the telegraphists to say, We ought to be paid large wages because of the large profits. But I am afraid in the future that the large surplus of the Post Office will cease to be a surplus at all. We have already made large concessions, and during the last four years at any rate, while the expenditure of the Post Office has been going up at the rate of about nine per cent., the revenue has been going up only about half that amount. That, of course, on a very large expenditure like that of this Office, goes a long way to reduce the surplus. But we have got this to recollect, that the non-effective vote of the Post Office has by no means reached its maximum, and we are really pensioning a staff of one-third, or a little more than one-third, of the present staff; and when this large staff comes to the pension age the Post Office pension alone will be increased by a million a year. Now I just want to say a few words more upon the question raised by the honourable Member for Stepney. That is a question of combination and trade

1553
unionism. Now I perfectly admit the advantages of trades unionism, I quite believe with the honourable Member that they do a vast amount of useful work. They remove a large amount of individual grumbling by focussing the minds of the workmen on those large grievances which affect the whole. They do good work, they bring those grievances to the light of day, and they also do good by giving them articulate expression between employers and employed. Those are direct advantages, because a grievance clearly explained is at any rate half way gone towards a removal. The Post Office has done nothing to discourage these organisations in its officials at the Post Office. During the last four years these organisations have increased very largely indeed. Let us take the figures. The Postal Telegraph Organisation has increased between the years 1895 and 1897—I am sorry that those are the latest figures which I have—from 6,200 to 7,200; the Postmen's Federation has increased from 15,000 to 22,000 members. Those are the two main organisations, the others are very small and not worth quoting, but they have increased in very much the same proportion. The Post Office has not done anything to discourage it, but it is only right that trades unionists should recognise some special circumstances in the case of the Post Office, the enormous staff at the Post Office of 160,000 hands. Naturally, in a large staff like that, it is necessary that there should be an organisation which should be agreed on between the men and the heads of the Post Office. Long before trades unions came into existence there was an organisation which, by means of memorials and deputations did afford to the employés of the Post Office an opportunity of putting their grievances before the Postmaster-General themselves. But I think that the honourable Gentleman will also admit that in a large staff like this discipline is absolutely necessary, and we cannot allow insubordination to be sheltered under the name of organisation. I do not know that discipline should be more necessary in our Army and Navy than it should be in our Post Office. It is just as necessary that there should be discipline there. Again, it is only right to remember that, unlike outside service
1554
of a private employer, it is a pension service, and these men have got nothing to lose at all by it. Everything to gain and nothing to lose; they know their position is secure. In the employ of a private employer, if a man were constantly grumbling, the employer would say—"Very well, you have your choice; if you are not satisfied with your position here you can go out of my service and go somewhere else." And then, as I have mentioned, they have not only these pensions, but they have a large number of special benefits. There is another distinction. Most private firms either employ union or non-union men; the firms who employ mixed bodies are peculiar; but the Post Office employs both union and non-union men, and the non-union men are practically in the majority, and it would be grossly unfair to them for the Postmaster-General to take the leaders of the union as being the leaders of the men of the Post Office. Again, we have to remember that, unlike most private employers, the Post Office is the sole employer for this kind of work, and there is no standard of wages, and the only standard of wage for this particular kind of work is what you can squeeze out of the exchequer of the Postmaster-General. There is no standard outside by which you can say this is a fair amount of wage to pay these men. What, after all, is the complaint which the trade unionists bring forward in connection with the Post Office? The honourable Member for North Manchester asked me to define what were the privileges of these men, and how far they are allowed to exercise trade union rights. I tell you plainly: first of all I take the men outside the Post Office, and, with regard to them, I say they are at perfect liberty to combine with whom they like, how they like, and when they like; and the only limitation imposed on those men is this, that they should not meet during office hours, and they should not use language calculated to incite to insubordination. They have a perfect right to regulate their grievances, but the Postmaster-General has a perfect right to require that they shall not incite others to insubordination, and I think this House will take that view also. With regard to the men inside the Post Office itself, there are two methods by which the Postmaster-General can be

1555
approached—first, by memorial, through their superior officers; and, second, by deputation. The only difference, the only thing which trade unions can com plain of, is that the Postmaster-General will not allow outside interference, but does insist that these memorials shall be sent in by some one who is an employé, and the deputation shall also consist of employés. Is not that reasonable? Who are the men who are most likely to know where the grievance is? Why, men, of course, who are working in the Department, and the Post Office is so divided and sub-divided in the different departments that it is absolutely impossible for an outsider to know what the grievances of the postmen in the various offices are. The Post master General knows the only way to get at these facts is to have them stated to him by those who know them, and there is no rule more calculated to give effect to that suggestion than the rule which requires that the men who bring the grievances before him shall be the men employed in that particular service. The real grievance is, that we shall not allow outsiders to attend. After all, that is a reasonable thing, at any rate, because I am sure the men who do represent these grievances are men who understand the work. I should just like to mention a curious justification of that view of the Post master-General afforded by the trade unionists themselves. We know that in the past there was an agitation on the part of the Post Office officials to get a Member of Parliament to specially represent them, but the postman said, if we had a labour representative in the House, he will be no use to us; and, in the same way, they were unable to accept a telegraphist, and the telegraphists were unable to accept this postman, as each class said of the other that they would know nothing about their grievances. It is a rule of the trades union itself that nobody shall be allowed to attend the Trades Union Congress who is not a working member of the trade or a permanent paid official. But the man who is really responsible for all this grievance is a Mr. Clery. He is the man who, as I understand, was refused admission to the Congress, and that is the man the Postmaster-General refuses to receive on these questions. I go further. I say—
MR. STEADMAN: I am sure the right honourable Gentleman has no desire to misrepresent me in reference to my Amendment, and it would only be fair to me to say that. So far as I am concerned, Mr. Clery, upon the subject of this Amendment, has not said a word to me.
MR. HANBURY: Yes, that may be so, but we all know that he is the man who is at the back of this agitation. But I go from that point to the root of the matter. Mr. Clery is a discharged servant of the Post Office, discharged for insubordination. Is that the kind of man to act as conciliator between employer and employed? Is that the sort of man who would simplify such a task? On the contrary, he is the very last man who would do any such thing. I think I have fairly dealt with the two points raised by the honourable Member with regard to the question of wages and with regard to the question of the rights of combination. The right of combination is, I say, absolute. There is just the same right in the Post Office servants as there is in any private firm. With regard to the inquiry into the wages of the men, I say in the first place no fresh grievance is presented here tonight, and I say that those grievances which have been represented are of a very infinitesimal character, and on that ground, but not that ground alone, and there having been two inquiries held already, I do not think we can go to the trouble of appointing a third inquiry.
MR. PICKERSGILL: I have a very clear recollection of the Committee appointed to examine into this Question, and my recollection does not agree with the statement made by the honourable Member. So far as my recollection goes, the labour Members never acquiesced in the composition of that Committee. We claim that either a Committee of this House exclusively should be appointed, or, at all events, that this House should be represented on it. But it is perfectly true that as no other was offered to us, we were obliged to accept this Committee or have no Committee at all; and we thought that the Committee, constituted as it was, was better than no inquiry at all. Now, I was rather sorry to hear the concluding

1557
observations of the right honourable Gentleman with regard to the two representations made to the Postmaster-General, because he seemed to desire to ride off on a personal issue. I do not think that is quite fair. In an earlier portion of his remarks, he said that the Postmaster-General would not be willing to receive representations from those not in the employ of the Post Office, and he submitted to the House that that contention was very reasonable. I do not think it is; and for this reason, the private employers do—I might almost go so far as to say they are compelled to—meet and receive representations from those not actually in their employ.
MR. HANBURY: But working in the same trade.
MR. PICKERSGILL: Not necessarily working in the same trade, provided that they are the duly constituted representatives of those employed by the firm. Therefore, I think the two cases are precisely parallel. Then there were two or three observations made by the right honourable Gentleman, which, I think, were not strictly accurate, and which he will see on reconsideration are not true. With regard to the telegraphists, I understood him to say the work performed by them was not now more difficult, and the telegraphists were not now entitled to higher remuneration than in 1872. Might I tell him that in 1882 Mr. Fawcett, in making the additions which he did make to the wages of the telegraphists, made those additions on the express ground that their work was more difficult and complex than it had been hitherto. Then the right honourable Gentleman said that no grievance was alleged on the part of the sorters. I think that is easily explained, because the sorters, as compared with other branches of the service, are very fairly paid. But I would like to quote what Mr. Badcock, the Controller of the London Postal Service, said upon this matter before the Tweedmouth Committee. Asked as to whether he would put the postmen on the same footing as the second-class sorters, he stated as follows—
"I would put the postmen much on the footing of second-class sorters. I think that
1558
their duties are equal in importance, and, if anything, the postmen's duties are more arduous than those of the second-class sorters, because they have more split attendances."
Now how do the wages of these two classes of postal servants compare? I find that the maximum wage of the sorter is £112 per annum, whereas the maximum wage of the postman is 31s. a week. Yet Mr. Badcock said that if there was any difference between the work which the two classes of postal servants performed, the work performed by postmen was the more arduous of the two. In one respect, I think we have a right to complain that the recommendations of the Tweedmouth Committee have not been carried out. The Tweedmouth Committee recommended that the cost of living in a particular district should be an element in fixing the wages of the postman, so far as that particular district was concerned. Now, my honourable Friend behind me has drawn the attention of the House to the case of the postmen of Woolwich. Woolwich is notoriously an expensive place to live in, and if the recommendations laid down by the Committee were carried out the Woolwich men at any rate would have a material increase in their wages. Now, the right honourable Gentleman and the Post Office apparently have a great horror of submitting their case to a Committee of this House. I cannot understand their position. I think the House has noticed that during the last 10 years there has been a great tendency on the part of great companies, when those companies have a difference between themselves and their employés in connection with the wages, to refer the matter in dispute to outside authority. There is a conspicuous illustration for that in 1897. A difference having arisen on the North Eastern Railway with regard to the wages to be paid by that railway, Lord James was called in as arbitrator, and he arrived at a wage satisfactory to both parties concerned. If there is this tendency on the part of outside companies, I do not think it is reasonable on the part of the Post Office to object to submit their case to this House. Now, I understand the right honourable Gentleman to throw a challenge to those who represent the Post Office servants, and that challenge falls under two heads. The

1559
right honourable Gentleman said, in the first place, if the Post Office servants had a Committee, would they, through their representatives, be content to consider it as final? The second challenge was—Would the postal servants, in the event of everything being inquired into, be willing that the decisions of the former Committee, even so far as they were favourable to the servants, should come up for revision? I am in a position to say that those who represent them will be quite willing to accept a Committee composed of Members of this House, subject to the two conditions which the right honourable Gentleman has laid down, and which I have enumerated, and the right honourable Gentleman
having now his challenge taken up, if he is willing to appoint a Committee, I have no doubt that my honourable Friend who moved it will be willing to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment proposed—"To add at the end of the Question these words—
"And we humbly represent to your Majesty that, in view of the great discontent, existing among the employés of the Postal and Telegraphic services, immediate inquiry should be made into the causes of complaint."
Question put—"That those words be there added."
The House divided: Ayes 91; Noes 159.—(Division List No. 13.)

AYES.

Allen, W. (Newc. under Lyme)

Holden, Sir Angus

O'Malley, William

Baker, Sir John

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Barlow, John Emmott

Jacoby, James Alfred

Pirie, Duncan V.

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

Price, Robert John

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Joicey, Sir James

Priestley, Briggs (Yorks)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Jordan, Jeremiah

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Burns, John

Kearley, Hudson E.

Reckitt, Harold James

Burt, Thomas

Kilbride, Denis

Rickett, J. Compton

Caldwell, James

Kitson, Sir James

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Cawley, Frederick

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Schwann, Charles E.

Clough, Walter Owen

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Scott, C. Prestwich (Leigh)

Colville, John

Leng, Sir John

Souttar, Robinson

Cozens-Hardy, Herbert Hardy

Leuty, Thomas Richmond

Spicer, Albert

Crilly, Daniel

Lewis, John Herbert

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Crombie, John William

Lloyd-George, David

Stevenson, Francis S.

Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

Logan, John William

Strachey, Edward

Daly, James

Lough, Thomas

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Davies, M.Vaughan- (Cardigan

MacAleese, Daniel

Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

Davitt, Michael

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

Dillon, John

M'Cartan, Michael

Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Ghee, Richard

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Doogan, P. C.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

Duckworth, James

Maddison, Fred.

Weir, James Galloway

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Maden, John Henry

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Fenwick, Charles

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Williams, John Carvell (Notts

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Wilson, John (Govan)

Gilhooly, James

Monk, Charles James

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)

Hayden, John Patrick

Murnaghan, George

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—.

Hazell, Walter

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Mr. Steadman and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

Hemphill, Rt.Hon. Charles H.

O'Kelly, James

NOES.

Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

Beach, Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Bris.)

Chelsea, Viscount

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Beckett, Ernest William

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Bemrose, Sir Henry Rowe

Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis.

Bethell, Commander

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Blakiston-Houston, John

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

Cornwallis, F. S. W.

Balfour, Rt.Hn. A. J. (Mnc'r)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Curzon, Viscount

Banbury, Frederick George

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbys.)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

Denny, Colonel

Bartley, George C. T.

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Doughty, George

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Doxford, William Theodore

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Lafone, Alfred

Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Lawrence, SirE.Durning-(Corn

Round, James

Fergusson, RtHn SirJ.(Mnc'r)

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Russell, Gen. F. S.(Ch'lt'nham

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Finch, George H.

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Llewelyn,SirDillwyn-(Swansea

Seely, Charles Hilton

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Fisher, William Hayes

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew

Flower, Ernest

Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Folkestone, Viscount

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (L'pool)

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Forster, Henry William

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Foster, Harry S.

Lorne, Marquess of

Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.

Gedge, Sydney

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Macdona, John Cumming

Spencer, Ernest

Gilliat, John Saunders

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Maclure, Sir John William

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

Goldsworthy, Major-General

M'Calmont,Col. J. (Antrim,E.

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edin., W.)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Middlemore,JohnThrogmorton

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Goschen, Rt HnG.J.(St.Geo.'s

Monckton, Edward Philip

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Goulding, Edward Alfred

More, Robert Jasper

Strauss, Arthur

Gretton, John

Morrell, George Herbert

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Morton, ArthurH.A.(Deptf.)

Thornton, Percy M.

Gull, Sir Cameron

Mount, William George

Valentia, Viscount

Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Murray,RtHnA.Graham(Bute

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

Myers, William Henry

Webster, SirR.E (IsleofWight)

Hanbury, Rt. Hon.Robt.Wm.

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

Heath, James

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlingt'n)

Whiteley, H.(Ashton-under-L.

Hill, Sir Edw. Stock (Bristol)

Penn, John

Williams, JosephPowell-(Birm

Hobhouse, Henry

Pilkington, Richard

Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh. N.

Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh

Plunkett, RtHnHorace Curzon

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.)

Howell, William Tudor

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Wodehouse, Rt Hn.E.R.(Bath

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wyndham, George

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Priestley,Sir W.Overend(Edin.

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Purvis, Robert

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

Pym, G. Guy

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Kenyon, James

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Ritchie, Rt.Hn.Chas. Thomson

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Robinson, Brooke

Bill read a second time, and committed till to-morrow.

Main Question again proposed.

RAILWAYS (UNITED KINGDOM) (INSPECTION).
Another Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words—
"And we humbly represent to your Majesty the urgent need of extending the powers of the Board of Trade in order to establish efficient inspection of the working of the railways of the United Kingdom, and of the introduction of a Bill for the greater safety of the men engaged in shunting operations, whereby there is good reason to believe that the heavy loss of life and serious non-fatal accidents now taking place on railways would be materially reduced."—(Mr. Maddison.)
MR. MADDISON: Mr. Speaker, in rising to move the Amendment which stands in my name, I desire to be as brief as possible, although, Sir, I am conscious, and I think the House will agree with me, that the subject of the safety of railway men is one of great importance, and it needs
1562
no apology from me to introduce it to the House to-night, for some of us think Parliament has no worthier task than in seeking to make safer the lives of the workpeople of this country. And I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that I was a little disappointed, although I am not in the habit of expecting very much from this Government, at the absence from the Queen's Speech of any reference to the great question of railway safety, for there had been apparently inspired paragraphs in papers of some considerable standing which led us to think that something would be done in this direction. Now, my Amendment divides itself really into two parts. It asks for wider powers to be given to the Board of Trade, and for the introduction of definite legislation with respect to one part of railway work. At the present moment, strange as it may appear, there is really no inspection of railways at all. It is true that before a line can be opened there must be an inspection by a Board of Trade officer,

1563
who must give a certificate before traffic can be run, but after the opening ceremony has taken place neither an inspector nor a sub-inspector has any standing, can make any inquiry until after an accident has occurred. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not here to deny at all that great good has been done by inquiries which have been held into the causes of accidents after they have occurred, but I do submit, Sir, that it would be far more to the purpose if practical men could go into the shunting yards and various other places on railways much in the same manner as Home Office inspectors can go into factories. But, Sir, at the present moment it does not remain here; for if honourable Gentlemen ever read the reports of the Board of Trade inspectors they will not need to be told that not only have they no powers of inspection before an accident, but that their duties largely consist, even after accidents, in pointing out what they believe to have been the cause of some collision or accident, and making pious recommendations, and, as I think the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade will admit, it depends entirely upon the gracious consent of the railway companies of the kingdom whether these recommendations are adopted or not. So much is this the fact, that it is a very usual thing to read in an inspector's report that he is calling attention to the causes of an accident which he had previously pointed out, some five or six years before, were the causes of an accident which had happened on the very same line and under similar conditions. And then, Sir, when you come to the sub-inspectors' recommendations, you have this, which I cannot help but call a grave scandal, namely, that a sub-inspector may have pointed out quite clearly an obvious defect in the working which has caused loss of life and limb, and his report has been sent to the companies, but on many occasions his recommendations have been deliberately and wilfully ignored. Now, Sir, honourable Gentlemen may say that it is not likely that a great railway company can be called upon to put into operation every little suggestion made by sub-inspectors, and that sub-inspectors are only human, and that they are, therefore, liable to err. But, Mr. Speaker, I. do not take those technical questions about which
1564
there may reasonably be considerable difference of opinion, but I take defects in railway work which it does not need a railway man to pass an opinion upon. Let me give the House one example—one will suffice. I think we shall all be agreed here that a dark shunting yard is a source of danger to the men who have to marshal and manipulate railway traffic. Shunting, as I shall show in a moment or two, ranks among the most perilous of all callings, and the dangers of that calling are intensified, as we all shall admit, by the absence of necessary light for the men to do their work in. Mr. Speaker, some two or three years ago—and I am sorry to see that these reports are not issued annually—there were eight cases on the London and North-Western Railway, to take one line, where the sub-inspector had pointed out dark shunting yards. And what was the result? The report declared that in five cases the recommendations were altogether ignored. Now, Mr. Speaker, I said it was a scandal, and I repeat it, that any railway company should subject its men to needless danger, danger merely for want of lighting. These instances might be multiplied if necessary. So much is there need for increased powers being given to the Board of Trade that a short time ago the present Board of Trade sub-inspectors declared that there was no need for an increase of their number, and the President of the Board of Trade has, I think, more than once quoted that statement of his sub-inspectors as a reason that he should not increase their numbers. But the reason that these sub-inspectors gave was that the present powers of the Board of Trade are so limited that it is quite useless, in their opinion, to increase the number of sub-inspectors unless they have more powers to pursue their inquiries. Well, Mr. Speaker, personally I am no great advocate for State interference, and would only have it when absolutely necessary. We also all realise the dangers that come from too much centralization; but the history of railways shows conclusively that improvements in safety appliances do depend upon compulsion, and that in that department of railways where the pressure of the Board of Trade has been greatest, there the results in the saving of life and limb have shown the most considerable improvement. Why, Sir,

1565
when we take the figures referring to passengers, I find from the Board of Trade returns, that in 1874 there was one passenger killed in every 5,550,000 travellers, and one injured in every 296,000 travellers; while in 1897 safety had so much improved that there was only one passenger killed in every 57,000,000, and only one injured in every 3,000,000. So that, Mr. Speaker, I am justified in saying that, where there has been the greatest attention given to safety appliances, there the result has been the best. But the fact is that down to the time of the late Liberal Government—and then largely on the initiative of the late Mr. Mundella, and ultimately carried out by his successor, the President of the Board of Trade, there was no means at all by which accidents which affected railway men as distinct from the general public, were inquired into. It was only at that period, when some specially flagrant case was pointed out in this House, that inquiries were instituted into accidents to railway men. The result was that, while great attention was given to the safety of passengers, railway men went to their death with no more notice taken of it than a more paragraph in the newspapers and a figure in the written report to the Board of Trade. Nothing was done to inquire into the cause of accidents to railway men; but if perchance a passenger was involved in the accident, in every case there was a Board of Trade inquiry by one of the inspectors of that department. I hope I have shown that those inquiries which can now be made into accidents in which the public are not involved are robbed of their value, because the sub-inspectors are confined to the mere accident which has taken place. They have no power to examine the yards apart from the accident, and make a report or recommendations which the department has the power to enforce. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to trouble the House with too many figures, but just to show the terrible state of affairs to which I am trying to draw the attention of the House, and that the matter is really a serious one, let me quote a few figures. Well, taking
1566
the number of men who manipulate the railway traffic of this country, and excluding a large number of clerks, mechanics, and others who are included in the Railways Regulations Act of 1898—I find that in 10 years from 1888 to 1897 no fewer than 4,751 railway men fell at their posts, and that there were 30,271 railway men more or less seriously injured. In those 10 years in killed and wounded there was a total of 35,022. Now, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that these figures are very serious, that they represent a huge amount of suffering and anguish, physical and mental, and that they often mean penury and poverty for the families of these men. Altogether these facts and figures make up a very strong case for exhausting every resource which we possess, in order that we may, at least, minimise this awful loss of life and limb. My case is that these resources have not been exhausted, and that the President of the Board of Trade, if he had the powers and the resources, could do a great deal to reduce the fearful list I have given to the House. But if we leave the general aspect of the question for the particular—take, for instance, shunting—operations, then, indeed, the percentage of accidents can hardly be equalled in any other calling. Why, Sir, I find that from the Board of Trade Returns—from which alone I quote—that amongst shunters, goods' guards, and breaksmen there were in ten years no fewer than 1,277 tilled and 17,094 injured, and that the total number of the grades only averaged in each of these years about 19,000 men. I would also, Mr. Speaker, call attention to the fact that if you take the last five years and compare them with the first five years, you have an increase of 20 per cent. in the injured in shunting operations. It is true, I am glad to say that in the fatalities there was some slight reduction. But when we leave aggregate figures and come to percentages, which after all is the only accurate way of reaching the true condition of affairs, what do we find? We find that in 1897 one breaksman in every 264 was killed, and one breaksman in every LI was injured. Why, Mr. Speaker, these figures are so large, these percentages ire so terrible that, although from a

1567
variety of causes I have had occasion to consult the Board of Trade Returns for many years, I myself felt that there must he some error. But when I found in the following year's returns a similar tale told, then I confess I felt alarmed at the increase of these accidents. When, however, we come to those exclusively employed in shunting operations the case is still worse. In 1897 there was one shunter in every 203 killed, and one in every 12 injured. Mr. Speaker, we sometimes hear of the courage of our troops and of the dangers to which the are exposed. Why, a British soldier enployed in slaughtering Dervishes in the Soudan has a safe place compared with the railway shunter. You may take the average death roll of our wars, and you will find nothing worse than goes on from year to year in the shunting yards of this country. And, Mr. Speaker, this comes home to the working classes of this country, and I hope that the House will feel the gravity of the case I am trying to place before it. Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make one point very clear. I am not here to-night, or anywhere else, and I never have done it, to make wholesale charges of cruelty and the lack of interest in human life on the part of the railway companies of the United Kingdom. I have said many hard things, and probably will again, of the railway companies, because I believe that they have been justified; but I have always said, and I say it here, that the British railways, on the whole, are amongst the best managed, with the best organisation of its kind, of any railways of any country in the world. I believe that there are a variety of causes for this, mainly through the splendid vitality and fidelity, and magnificent skill and discipline of the men who conduct the traffic with its increasing speed and complexity. The improvement shown in the safety of the passengers is a result too, in great measure, of the skill and courage of the railway men. No doubt these good fellows have not been protected like the passengers they have so often saved; but up to a few years ago there was no public opinion on the subject at all, and the men suffered terribly. I am not here as a senti-
1568
mentalist who imagines that you can conduct railway traffic without loss of life and lamb. I fully admit that where you have movement of vehicles—movement which is of great speed in many cases—and in others, which is worse, great congestion of traffic, where you have to move a lot of waggons and coaches with very little room to do it in, then it is inevitable that men will suffer both in life and in injury. But I suggest that the moment you show that any particular calling is perilous, and the more you emphasise the dangerous character of the calling, then that is a stronger reason for placing on you the greater duty to do everything you can to minimise the danger. Well, I submit that this has not yet been done, and that it will not be done until the Board of Trade has greater powers. But, Mr. Speaker, I always try to be practical, and I tell the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade very plainly that, personally—and I am sure my opinion is shared by many honourable Members of this House, and by railway men generally—I believe the country will never be satisfied until this Department has the powers indicated in my Amendment. But if the right honourable Gentleman can give us a definite assurance that he will, during this present Session, introduce a Bill dealing with automatic couplings, then, with the consent of the House, I shall not press the Amendment to a division. My object in moving this Amendment is to get something done for the benefit of the railwaymen of the kingdom. The little I know of politics has taught me to get all I can when I can, and then to go on trying for the rest; and if the right honourable Gentleman can give us, as I have some little hope he may, because during the time I have been in the House and from personal observation before that period I have seen that he is fully alive to the gravity of this question—if he will give us some assurance that he intends to take action this Session we shall be satisfied What we want is automatic couplings, and we want them because they will prevent one of the great causes of coupling accidents, for they will remove the

1569
necessity of men going between the vehicles. I admit that this will at first involve considerable cost to the railway companies. Some honourable Members suppose that because labour Members have not a large stake in the country they are therefore indifferent to the feelings of capitalists, but I think I may repudiate any such accusation, and I would point out that although the cost will be considerable, it must not be forgotten that this is a matter which concerns men's lives and limbs. I do not demand the immediate and universal adoption of an expensive change like automatic couplings, but we do want them introduced as quickly as possible. We do not say that every railway company in the kingdom must apply these couplings to their stock within a short period; we have sufficient knowledge to prevent us making any such absurd demand. All we ask is that they shall proceed to apply these couplings as soon as possible. We know what was done at the time of the introduction of continuous brakes. The President of the Board of Trade knows very well that his returns show that the quantity of stock unequipped with continuous brakes is being reduced year by year, and I venture to say that if this House had not intervened, instead of there being only about four per cent. of the stock not now equipped with these brakes there would have been 40 or 50 per cent. Therefore we say that we are quite prepared for the gradual introduction of automatic couplings so long as reasonable activity is shown in the matter. It has been said by some ill-informed people that this is a mere movement to benefit certain patentees of automatic couplings. But here, again, we have a good precedent in the case of the continuous brake. What did the Board of Trade do in regard to that? They did not say, "We will have only one automatic brake," but they wisely drew up some conforming conditions, and then said, "We do not care where the brake comes from, or who invents or manufactures it, but, in order to conform with the Board of Trade standard, you must do certain things."
1570
Exactly the same thing could be done in the case of automatic couplings. Before I conclude I want to refer to the American Coupling Law. America has been the great slaughter-house of railway men. No one can read their statistics without a shudder, even after reading our own, and that is saying a good deal. There can be no doubt that the British railwayman was almost twice as safe as his American brother before the introduction of the Coupling Law. America is a great land for individual enterprise, and the law as to railways is very different to what it is in Great Britain. But even in America so terrible was the loss of life from shunting that in 1893 a Coupling Law was passed through Congress, and through the Senate. May I be allowed to quota a few figures? Up to the end of 1897 over 70 per cent Of the entire stock in America was equipped with an automatic coupler. Bearing that in mind I have to say that in 1893, the first year of the adoption of the Act, there were 433 men killed in coupling and uncoupling; while in 1897, with only 70 per cent. of the stock equipped, 214 shunters were killed; 11,277 were injured" in 1893, and 6,283 in 1897. Without wearying the House with further figures I may point out that the net result is, on the testimony and authority of official statistics regarding American railways, that the introduction of automatic couplings has effected a saving in life and limb of something near 50 per cent. I think I have said sufficient to show that the question I have introduced to the House is one of great importance, and that it has an enormous effect on the lives not only of railwaymen, but also of women and children. What I ask for to-night is not the State management of railways—and I suppose some honourable Gentleman will tell us that no one wants to manage the railways through the Board of Trade—but with all due respect for that Board I did not think we should care for that What we do want is an effective system of inspection, a system which, will enable the inspectors to go on to the lines before accidents have occurred, and which when accidents do occur will give the Department some

1571
power to enforce its regulations. As a last word I have only to express the hope that the right honourable Gentleman will show the railwaymen of the country and the nation at large that he has realised what this means to the brave fellows who manipulate our traffic from day to day and from night to night. It must he admitted that he has not exhausted all the means at his command to reduce the number of accidents. I am quite convinced that by the introduction of automatic couplings the saving of life and limb on our railways would be quite as great as it has proved to be on the American lines, and if the right honourable Gentleman can see his way to introduce this reform, and if the House will accept it, Parliament will never have done anything more worthy of its great traditions than passing an Act which will affect such a laudable purpose.
MR. SCHWANN: I ought, perhaps, to apologise for again addressing the House to-night, but I feel so strongly on the subject of this Amendment that I feel bound to second it. I am glad to do so because I have had frequent opportunities of seeing the awful separations between relatives, and have witnessed the effects of the terrible shocks caused by catastrophes among railwaymen, and anyone who has had such an experience should naturally wish to do all he could to prevent a recurrence of them. My honourable Friend has given statistics with reference to the loss of life, and therefore I do not feel called upon to weary the House with figures. He has referred to automatic couplings, and has explained what has taken place in America, showing how the legislation there adopted has had the effect of greatly reducing the loss of life. When that Bill was passed it was provided that five years would be given in which the railways should have power to alter their stock, and the result has been that in 1898 two-thirds have been fitted with automatic couplings, and in 1900 automatic couplings will be fitted through the whole of the cars. But, besides that, the Americans have added the continuous brakes, which they caused
1572
to be fitted even to the freight cars. I do not know whether it will enter into the views of the President of the Board of Trade to turn his attention to that very desirable change, but, generally, his powers seem to me to be far too weak for the great work which is cast upon him. Without at all saying anything in their disparagement, I do not think that the railways of England are likely to introduce far-reaching amendments without some compulsion, and I hope from the rumour which has been referred to by my honourable Friend that the Government has in contemplation some Bill, which will perhaps not immediately, but in the lapse of years, enforce upon the railway companies of England the application of automatic couplings to their carriages. In 1886 there was a conference at Derby in order to hit upon some coupling which would best answer the purposes of saving life. Malicious people have said that the conference was called in order to prove the excellence of the existing couplings. I do not know how far that is true, but I hope that the Board of Trade will be able to take fuller powers in order to insist upon automatic couplings being introduced to prevent this loss of life. I hope that the Government will take its courage in both hands, with its large majority of 140 votes, and venture upon such an undertaking, and force the railways gradually to adopt automatic couplings. There are other means by which accidents can be avoided; one of those is that every wagon should be fitted with two brakes, one on either side, which would prevent many of the unnecessary passages of the shunters underneath the carriage. It is, perhaps, a counsel of perfection to say that each wagon should be fitted with two brakes. I am aware that that reform would cause very considerable expense, and perhaps it would be advisable not to insist upon such a change till a later period, but it seems to me that while we are endeavouring to find means to prevent loss of life, double brakes would be a great advantage. I am afraid that if that were proposed the President of the Board of Trade would have some opposition from

1573
the railways, and his greatest opposition would be from collieries, and from private companies. But I hope that danger will also be obviated, and that this Government will not fear to meet the unpopularity which will be gathered from those changes. Nobody can exaggerate the importance of good lighting, in the early morning, in the shunting yards, and in several cases which have come to my knowledge it has been noticeable that it has been on foggy mornings that the most heartrending accidents have taken place, and I heartily recommend to the President of the Board of Trade a system of inspection in which this question of the better lighting of yards will be better cared for. Then there are the steam capstans which are used for the purposes of shunting. They are always an element of danger. I do not say that where they do not exist accidents do not also happen, but these steam capstans run a great number of revolutions, and have a rope attached to the wagons, and every now and then the rope breaks, and in the immense velocity which is given to the rope, the man who is tending to the wagon is caught, and his life is lost. If a treadle were attached to the capstan, then when it was likely that an accident would happen that could be used, and no further revolutions could take place, and the danger would thereby be much diminished. As things are, it is a question of running some considerable distance and stopping the engine, and perhaps two or three minutes will elapse before the victim will be released from the danger he is in. This may be a small matter, but yet it is the cause of a great number of deaths, and I hope the President of the Board of Trade will not think it beneath him to give his attention to these matters. I have very great pleasure in seconding the Resolution.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have no connection with any railway company, and, therefore, I speak quite impartially upon these matters. But I always study the figures in regard to accidents on railways, and I have been overwhelmed in so doing by the comparison between the loss of life and limb
1574
upon the part of the passengers, and the loss of life and limb on the part of the men employed. The honourable Member who moved this Amendment made a most effective speech, and I am sure that every honourable Member of the House must consider this to be a very serious matter. I will not rely upon my own recollection for figures in connection with this matter, but will give them from authority. What I want to impress upon the public, as far as I can possibly reach the public, is that amongst one class, the shunters, the number of accidents is most appalling. The honourable Member talked about the risks run by soldiers and sailors. I do not wish to enter into the question, either of the risks they run, or of their heroism, but I do know this, that the percentage of cases amongst the shunter class of railway servants alone is equal to the loss of life in the whole of the British fleet for a year. If that is so, it is capable, or ought to be capable, of being removed. The honourable Member has said that he does not cite a wrong without giving a remedy. He has given us a very practical suggestion about what is happening in the United States. He has pointed out that the very subject to which he has called attention has been found so obviously one which demanded public action, that the United States of America adopted whatever remedies came to hand. When a remedy has been sought for and found, it appears to me that it should be adopted, and we all know the reasons in favour of this proposal for automatic couplings. I have received an account of the experiments which have been made with these new couplings and automatic brakes. I do not know which is the most successful, or which is the cheapest. That the thing can be done is amply proved by the fact that it is done, and has been done, by a country which is much larger than our own—that is the United States of America. The suggestion of the honourable Member seems to me to embody a reasonable proposal, and it is not reasonable to suppose that no remedy can be found for the state of things which exist now. Of course, it cannot be done on a single railway. I will make this suggestion:

1575
Cannot we insist upon this: That whenever a goods truck is built, or comes into the yard for repairs it shall be fitted with these appliances, and that a reasonable time for so doing shall be given by the Board of Trade. The examples which the honourable Member has cited seem to me on all fours with the matter of automatic couplings. The provision of continuous automatic brakes on passenger carriages has been made almost obligatory on all railways in the United Kingdom, and it seems to me that some such provision should be adopted with regard to the goods traffic for the sake of the life and limb of those enlaced in shunting operations. This view of the matter is the view of a perfectly independent Member of this House, who has spoken as to facts as he knows them to be, and which he thinks it is a reasonable thing to ask for a change in this direction. I have not the slightest reason to suppose that the attitude of the Government is anything but sympathetic towards this proposition. I do not believe that this continuous loss of life is a thing which they desire to sec going on, but I think they should give every encouragement to the idea embodied in such an Amendment as this. Although I trust that the honourable Member will not force this Motion to a division, yet I feel sure that he has the sympathy of a very large majority of the Members of this House.
MR. JOHN BURNS: The honourable Member for Brightside has given to the House a number of figures which it is unnecessary to repeat, and he has directed the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the necessity of the Board of Trade enforcing upon the railway companies the automatic couplings which have met with so remarkable a success during the last four years in America. That is a recommendation that I identify myself with most heartily. But it is not sufficient that the automatic couplings should be introduced for the diminution of a certain number of accidents in connection with shunting, because I am sure that there are other suggestions
1576
with which the honourable Member for Brightside will also agree. Automatic couplings are quite necessary, but better and additional brakes would also help a great deal in the same direction. If we adopt either suggestions, even then we cannot but recognise that with these extra appliances there is a need for a still further change in the direction of accident prevention. For instance, I believe that even if you have automatic couplings and shunting poles, more men will absolutely be required. I am positively convinced that the under-manning of the shunting staff is almost as fruitful a source of inquiry as the absence of automatic couplings. The President of the Board of Trade ought to insist upon a larger staff in the shunting yards than many railway companies are disposed to give, and even where we have automatic couplings and shunting poles and more men, many of the existing yards are insufficiently lighted, and the condition of the permanent way, through grease, and skids and other obstructions, is the frequent cause of serious accidents. Having said that, I come to another point. I do not doubt but what the President of the Board of Trade will say something that will satisfy my honourable friend the Member for Brightside, because both the Board of Trade and the Home Office have had brought home to them recently the frightful and needless sacrifice of human life that is going, on, not only in our railways, but in our mines. May I ask the President of the Board of Trade to remember that, beyond the recommendations which have been made, I would direct his attention to one source of accidents in another direction. Let us follow for a moment the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway from Victoria to Clapham Junction; there you will find on several of its lines and viaducts a tremendous reason why men have their lives needlessly sacrificed because of the large Pullman cars which these railways are adopting taking up at certain angles more room than the other carriages. We find that men are exposed under those conditions to a great risk. I know

1577
of one viaduct in my own district in which, when there are Pullman cars running in opposite directions, the platelayers have the greatest difficulty in escaping them. I myself have seen plate-layers at Battersea Junction viaduct compelled to jump out of the way of the Pullman cars going in opposite directions, to a wall with a drop of 60 feet on either side, in order to avoid being crushed by the oncoming trains. The President of the Board of Trade should prohibit the six feet way being filled up with sleepers, especially when trains are running through. He should further see that the causes of the cutting up of plate-layers that have recently happened should no longer continue, and that plate-layers should have out-look signallers, so that they might have a reasonable chance of escape. Take for instance the case of that brave fellow who was killed in driving the royal train. That in itself is sufficient to prove that all over-head bridges of our railways should be made of sufficient height to enable the man to stand at least half-way up his tender without having to run the risk of having his brains knocked out, as was the case with that unfortunate and brave fellow. It is not sufficient that automatic couplings should be made compulsory, but that also the bridges should be made higher than they are. In addition to that I might mention that there are plenty of spaces on many lines between goods trucks and adjoining walls which are of not more than two or three feet in width, when at least a six feet space ought to be the recognised space. As the right honourable Gentleman is desirous of saying a few words upon this important subject, I do not think it is necessary for me to say more, but I hope he will give a promise of legislation dealing with this subject, and I trust that where legislation will not meet the difficulty that administrative changes will be enforced. Certainly we have no right to see the men on the railways slaughtered as they are. The honourable Gentleman the Member for Belfast mentioned the relative risk of life between railway-men and soldiers. I have
1578
this comparison to make; that there were 29 British soldiers killed at the battle of Khartoum, and that there were 501 railway-men killed on our railways last year. There were 148 killed in the Balaclava charge, and there are considerably more shunters and brakesmen killed every year in the industry of our railways. It seems to me to be a curious fact that the man who is paid for getting killed rarely gets killed. In 15 years, from 1872 to 1886, out of 1,407,000 troops liable to be engaged in battle, there were only 1,396 killed in action, and in that same period of 15 years there were 8,400 men killed on our railways, and a total of 6,500 civilian workmen killed in the same period. We cannot permit this wanton sacrifice of human life to go on. Officers in the Army and Navy, to their credit be it said, look after the protection of their men, and do everything in their power to prevent the needless slaughter of those who are placed under their command. Unfortunately, we have not, in relation to our railwaymen, officers who take up the same position with regard to the railway industry as a colonel of a regiment does with the soldiers under his command. The nearest substitute to that kind of a man in the railway world is the President of the Board of Trade. Every year in his army of industry there are 500 men killed, and 67,000 more or less injured. They are killed by the neglect of the most elementary causes, and through the lack of administrative control which the right, honourable Gentleman himself can provide, and I would respectfully suggest to him that instead of allowing colonels of the Royal Engineers to be present at a coroner's inquest after a railway accident has happened he should appoint sub-inspectors and chief inspectors of railways to examine lines and to make suggestions, and their advice should be forced upon our railway companies, and if he does that I am sure that the 50s per cent. diminution of accidents in America which we have witnessed will be followed by a remarkable diminution in the number of men injured and killed in this country. I appeal to him to

1579
so draft his Bill, and to so model his legislation, as will cause automatic couplings to be promptly introduced, and also that he will bring in the other reforms that have been suggested. If he will do that he will save much litigation to the railway companies, and he will save hundreds of families from being thrown cither on the Unions or Provident Societies, and also will prevent many widows and orphans from being thrown upon the protection of the State. These are matters of elementary precaution without which the slaughter and injuring of these men will go on. It is for the right honourable Gentleman to tell the railway companies that this killing can go on no longer, that in England killing on the railways is murder, and it is for him to define that, and if he does not do that with half the courage with which he has done similar things which he has been requested to do, notably with regard to certain works on the River Thames, then I shall be much surprised. If he does it we shall see the saving of life of 150 or 200 a year, which will be an instalment of a still further reduction when these improvements are forced upon the railway companies by the right honourable Gentleman and his department.
MR. PARKER SMITH: It seems to me that it is a great injustice to charge the railway companies with want of care with regard to the safety of their men. On the contrary, I know that they have the greatest anxiety for them, that they do exercise the greatest care for them in endeavouring to prevent accidents, and that they have the greatest concern when any accident happens to those who are under their control. The honourable Member who proposed this Motion did so in a most temperate and reasonable speech, and put forward various proposals, the most noticeable of which was with regard to the adoption of automatic couplings. Now, Sir, I think that question is one which is not yet in a position of being solved with regard to British railways. If it is solved presently I think you will
1580
find that it can be impressed upon the railways, and can be introduced with that tact and discernment which the Board of Trade always shows. I do not think that it follows as a matter of course that the system which fits the needs of America will fit the needs of this country. The circumstances here are very different to those of America, and it is very probable that a fresh and different system will have to develop, and when it is developed I think it will be accepted by the English railways in the same way that automatic brakes have been accepted; but I would like to point out that there are a good many different things that will have to be considered. For example, we have been lately pressed, with regard to the carriage of cattle, to adopt screw couplings as against chain couplings, which it is urged would result in the great relief of the cattle during their transit. Of course, if automatic couplings are to be introduced they will save the cattle equally as well as the screw couplings, but at the same time there are other reasons to be considered. It must be understood with regard to all these things that a railway company has always this to consider. These things are no doubt desirable, but what about the cost? During the last half-year there has been an enormous increase in the amount of the gross takings of the companies, but this increase in their earnings has been used up in the working expenses. You cannot expect the companies to do more than spend their increased earnings in the working expenses, and you cannot expect them to continue to do that. Are you prepared to grant the companies greater freedom in the amount of the rates that they are going to charge? It is easy to some people to press for these expensive reforms, and at the same time to demand reduction in rates, but if you want to have all these additional improvements then you must expect the public at large to pay for them; if the public at large do not pay for them, then you will certainly find that the railway companies will not introduce them. In regard to specific improvements of this sort, I

1581
think you will find that as soon as they are proved to be satisfactory there will be no difficulty in getting them introduced; but there is another argument which has been used by my honourable Friend opposite, and which is to me a very dangerous one, because it is not one which in my opinion will add to the safe working of the company, and that is, that inspectors shall be appointed, and shall be allowed to criticise, and to make such suggestions as they think fit. That, to my mind, is a very dangerous suggestion. If you have inspectors of that kind you take the responsibility of the line off the shoulders of the officials, because these inspectors would consider every earthly possibility of an accident occurring, and demand every possible protection against accident. What would happen if these men were appointed? You would have people coming in and calling upon the companies to make experiments, not out of their own pockets, to prevent the risk of accidents, but out of the pockets and at the risk of the railway companies. That sort of interference would be a very dangerous thing. The inspectors would only have one object, and that would be to avert the responsibility from themselves. If these inspectors were appointed either one of two things would happen. Either you would have the responsibility taken off the shoulders of those who were really in charge, or else you would have the companies sheltering themselves behind the fact that the inspector had been over the line and found no fault with the work that was being done. No, Sir; you must leave the responsibility with the men who are in charge. They have to work the line, and they have very severe penalties cast upon them in the case of accidents happening. Accidents are nowadays most expensive things. Those who are in charge of a line have not merely that feeling of horror which comes over a man when he finds that persons under him have been killed or injured, but there is also the feeling as to the very serious penalty which comes upon the
1582
company in the case of an accident. You must leave to the company and those in charge of the line the duty of saying that the line is safe. If there are matters of specific importance, they I think can be dealt with by the railway company, and if it is a matter of responsibility of working the line, then I think the Board of Trade is wise in leaving it to the discretion and in the charge of the Company.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): There were two remarks made by the honourable Gentleman who brought forward this Motion with which I think the whole of the House will agree. We are all agreed that the railway companies of this country are as a rule well administered—better administered, perhaps, than any other railway companies in any other part of the globe, and I am sure all of us can bear out what the honourable Gentleman said, that we are all practically agreed that, so far as railway administration is concerned, our railway administration is not second to any railway administration on the globe. The other remark with which I am sure we shall all most cordially agree is that we deplore the large number of accidents which occur in the course of railway management. I am also equally sure that the House will agree that anyone who is acquainted with the work that railway servants have to do must have the greatest sympathy with them for the dangers which they incur, and must have the greatest anxiety to minimise those dangers as far as it is possible. The honourable Member's remedy for the grievances which he says exist is that there should be much more State interference than there is at the present time. When the honourable Member for the Partick Division said that this was hardly a burden which the Government were justified in taking upon themselves, an honourable Member ejaculated "Factories and mines." Of course there is special legislation for factories and mines, because there are

1583
young people employed in them, and they are dangerous employments, and the House of Commons in consequence has legislated for them, and necessarily there has been a considerable army of inspectors and others appointed to see that the provisions of the Act of Parliament have been carried out; but I think there is a difference between railway work and the work of factories and mines which justifies the Government in interfering in the one case and not in the other. But I confess that if it were prudent for other reasons that the Government should undertake this immense responsibility which the honourable Gentleman would put upon our shoulders—and I very much doubt whether it would be—I confess that I cannot consider that they would be more secure under Government administration than they are under the administration of the different railway companies. What the honourable Gentleman desires is really practically taking the administration of the railway companies and their responsibilities out of the hands of the present managers and placing them upon the shoulders of the Government, and I do not myself believe that, if you were to add to the number of inspectors which we already possess, either the railway administration would be better conducted, or that the safety of those employed would be more secure, or that the results to the travelling public would be as good as they are at the present moment. I am always willing, as the honourable Gentleman knows, to use all the powers which I possess to see that those employed on railways are safeguarded as far as possible, and I am glad to say that the Government does not possess those legislative powers which the honourable Gentleman desires to see placed upon it. I am glad to say that there is hardly a single exception to the rule that, when representations and suggestions are made by the Board of Trade to railway companies, they receive very sympathetically the suggestions and the propositions presented to them. The honour-
1584
able Member must know that I do not for one moment say that all shunting yards are as they ought to be, but there has been great improvement of late years, in consequence of the representations made by the Board of Trade, not because of any legislative power that they possess, but because of the manner in which the railway companies have received the friendly representations made to them. But the honourable Gentleman passed from the abstract proposition which he had to make, and proposed certain specific things which he says would greatly add to the safety of life on railways. The honourable Gentleman knows, and the House knows, that in a discussion on the Estimates last year this matter was brought before the attention of the House by more than one speaker, and by the honourable Gentleman himself, and I said then that I proposed to send Mr. Hopwood over to Canada and to the United States with a view of seeing for himself and reporting to me what he saw and thought with regard to the arrangements for coupling in those countries. Mr. Hopwood has now made a report to the Board of Trade, and I am bound to say that the report does carry to my mind the indisputable fact that in consequence of automatic couplings which are now very largely used in both the United States and Canada there has been a great saving of life in respect to those who are engaged in these dangerous operations of which the honourable Member has spoken. I understand that in the United States there are now about 70 per cent. of the goods waggons which are supplied with the automatic couplings, and in 1900 the whole of the rolling stock in the United States will be supplied with those automatic couplings. The saving of life that the change has made is scarcely so great as could be expected to arise, because it is quite clear that when some of the waggons are supplied by one company and some by another company the danger of coupling up waggons must be

1585
greater under the new system than under the old, and I think it says a very great deal for the safety of these couplings when we find that since 1893 there has been so large a reduction in the accidents both to life and limb as has taken place in the United States. Mr. Hopwood's report states—
"In 1897 there were 219 less men killed and 4,994 less men injured than in 1893, the number of men killed being reduced one-half and the number of men injured practically one-half."
I understand that when the whole of the rolling stock in the United States is supplied with these couplings that the number of deaths and the number of injured will practically disappear altogether. It is a fact, as stated by some honourable Gentlemen, that these automatic appliances in the United States have been forced upon the railway companies by legislation—that five years was given in order for them to supply themselves, and that was found not to be enough, and that afterwards two years more was given, so that it will eventually take seven years to carry out the operation. In Canada, so far as I understand, there has been no legislation to enforce the adoption of these improvements there, and yet so impressed are they with the improvement and advantages of these automatic couplings that both in the Grand Trunk and the Canadian and Pacific Railways these couplings are being employed wholesale. In the study of the question made by Mr. Hopwood in America, he found that not only was there a great saving of life, but he says that the railway companies in the States which had applied these automatic couplings were so much impressed with the other advantages in working, that they would not go back to the old system, even if they had the choice. My honourable Friend has said that what suited America would not suit us. But can it be doubted for a moment that the ingenuity of man will not rise to the occasion, and that, because our trucks are somewhat different to the trucks of America, someone will
1586
not be able to invent an automatic coupling which will suit our trucks as the automatic coupling suits the American trucks? Let it be known that in five years or seven years, or whatever time may be fixed by Parliament, automatic couplings must be put upon all wagons in this country, and I will undertake to say that you will have a dozen inventions in six months applicable to the style of truck used on our railways, and I may inform my honourable Friend that we have had, since Mr. Hopwood has been to America, several proposals of inventors for couplings which would suit our railways, and one of those gentlemen went the length of saying that if I would endeavour to push his particular invention upon the railways of this country he would not mind halving the profit with me. It was a most tempting offer, but the exigencies of political life in this country prevented me from being able to accept it. Then there was the question of cost. If Parliament were to pass legislation of this kind as to automatic couplings being compulsory, if the cost were spread over a sufficient number of years, I do not think that the railway companies would find it an extremely onerous burden, but, as a matter of fact, if it decreases their liabilities to their servants for injuries, and their liability in regard to loss of life, I am quite satisfied that they would recoup themselves very quickly. But I put that question on one side altogether, for I am firmly convinced that if the railway companies of this country can be persuaded that these couplings, if adopted, would greatly save life and prevent injury to limb, that no question of cost would stand in the way of the adoption of this proposal. I may inform the honourable Gentleman that I have already had some negotiations with the principal railway companies running into London upon this subject, and at my request the Chairmen of those companies did me the honour to come to the Board of Trade whilst I explained to them what Mr. Hopwood had seen in America, and gave them my opinions as to what ought to be done in this country. I may add that I have

1587
drafted a Bill dealing not only with the question of automatic couplings, but with the question which has been more than once raised—the question of labelling the waggons on both sides, and giving them hand brakes, one on each side, and I am satisfied that if we are able in this Parliament to assent to these proposals they will add largely to the safety of life and limb of the railway servants. But I think it is perfectly right and fair that the railway companies should have an opportunity of tendering to a Committee of the House of Commons their views upon a question which affects them so much, and if I can induce the House of Commons, as I hope I may, at an early period of this Session to read this Bill a second time, I think that the Bill ought to be referred to a Select Committee, so that evidence can be given to show the railway companies that the fears which they entertain as to the proposals we are about to make are unfounded. I am sure we all desire that the railway companies should be with us in this legislation and not against us, and if we can show, as I am satisfied that we can show, that these proposals of ours are proposals which will ensure the safety of life and limb, I know they will be ready and willing to adopt these suggestions which we are about to make. Under these circumstances, and having regard to the fact that we hope at an early period of the Session to introduce the Bill of which I have spoken, I hope that the honourable Member will not deem it necessary to divide the House upon the subject.
MR. BRYCE: I have to offer my hearty congratulations to the Member for the Brightside Division upon the result of his Amendment. He has elicited a fact which was not mentioned in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech, and we now know another item of the Government's legislative programme. It is not my intention to do more than to congratulate my honourable Friend, and also to congratulate the President of the Board of Trade upon the step which he has announced he is going to take. I hope
1588
that the right honourable Gentleman will make public the report of Mr. Hopwood of which he has spoken, and I trust also that the House will be able to see the improvement which will follow upon the adoption of these automatic couplings by the railway companies. I have seen them at work in America, and my impression is that they save a great deal of litigation to the companies, and, if that is so, I am sure that they will recoup themselves in a very short time for any extra expenditure which their adoption will involve. I will not detain the House further than this, that I trust the right honourable Gentleman will introduce this Bill soon, that he will nominate the Committee as early as possible, and that he will endeavour to pass the Bill after it has been thrashed out by the Committee. The statistics as to the loss of life among railway servants which we have heard show that this matter is one in which there ought not to be any delay.
MR. MADDISON: With the definite promise of the Bill this Session, of course, I am very pleased to withdraw the Amendment, with the permission of the House, but may I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he will give a definite promise that this proposed Committee shall report this Session?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: The Select Committee is not proposed with the view of shelving the question. I only propose the Committee because it seems to me to be a fair thing that the railway companies should have a chance of being heard.
MR. MADDISON: With that statement, I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
And the Amendment, by leave, was withdrawn.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg, Sir, to Move the adjournment of the House.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It is seven minutes to twelve. Cannot the honourable Member finish his remarks in that time?
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I really do not think so. The subject which I want to bring before the House is a very important one. It affects the loss of a large number of lives every year, and I do not think I can finish my remarks in five minutes.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I can press my objection no further.
MR. CHANNING: I ask your ruling, Sir, as to whether this Question is not out of order, as the matter is dealt with in the Workmen's Compensation Act (1897) Amendment Bill.
MR. SPEAKER: I observed that Bill and I sent for a Copy of it. I find that it is a Bill of a single section, proposing to extend the operation of the Workmen's Compensation Act to agricultural labourers, and does not affect the present Amendment, which proposes to extend the Employers' Liability Act to Seamen.
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question again proposed. Debate arising,
Debate adjourned till to-morrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I beg to give notice that tomorrow, on the commencement of public business, I shall move—
"That Government business have precedence this day of the Notices of Motion, and if the proceedings on the Address be not coucluded this day, then such proceedings have precedence to-morrow of the orders of the day."
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Will the Motion of the Right Honourable Gentleman, if it is passed, preclude me from
1590
proceeding with my Amendment to the Address?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, the honourable Gentleman will be first.

LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till to-morrow.

PARISH COUNCILLORS (TENURE OF OFFICE) BILL.
MR. LAMBERT: I beg to move the second reading of this Bill.
THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,)said that, on behalf of the Government, he had no desire to offer any objection to the Bill. A difficulty arose last Session as to the carrying of this Measure owing to the opposition of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, who suggested that the election should be for two years instead of three, as proposed by the Bill. He believed that the right honourable Gentleman during the recess had considered the matter, and had now withdrawn his opposition, and had informed the Local Government Board that he would like to see the Bill passed into law.
Question put.
Motion agreed to.

SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till to-morrow.

METROPOLITAN GAS COMPANIES.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the charge conferred by Parliament on the Metropolitan Gas Companies, and to report as to the method in which those powers have been exercised, having regard to the differences of price charged by the various Companies."—(Mr. Cohen)—Debate arising.
And it being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.

NEW BILL.
  WORKMEN'S HOUSES TENURE.
  Bill to make provision with respect to the Tenure of the Houses of Workmen in certain employments, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Colville, Mr. Souttar, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Pirie, and Mr. John Wilson (Govan). Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 8th March, and to be printed. (Bill 81.)

HOUSES OF LORDS AND COMMONS PERMANENT STAFF.
Message from the Lords (17th February) communicating the following Resolution—
"That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to inquire into the Salaries of the Permanent Staff of both Houses of Parliament, and as to the present method of appointment or nomination by any Officer of
1592
either House; and to report what changes, if any, are suitable in respect thereto,"
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That this House concur with the Lords upon the appointment of a joint Committee of both Houses to consider the offices and emoluments of the officers of the Houses of Parliament."—(Sir W. Walrond.)
MR. PICKERSGILL: I do not object at all to the appointment of this Committee, because I am most anxious that such a Committee should be appointed, but this Motion has been taken so late to-night that I desire to say that we shall require to understand the terms of reference. It is desirable, no doubt, that we should have a Committee upon this subject. Such a Committee as this will involve a long and laborious inquiry, and it will be a pity if, after such a long and laborious inquiry, some results are not attained.
Motion agreed to.
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

PUBLIC BILL WITHDRAWN.

  PLACARDS ON STREETS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading upon Wednesday, 15th March read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.
  House adjourned at five minutes after Twelve of the clock.

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at Four of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Birmingham, North Warwickshire, and Stratford-upon-Avon Railway [H.L.]

Brighton Marine Palace and Pier [H.L.]

Friends' Provident Institution [H.L.]

Glasgow District Subway [H.L.]

Great Northern Railway [H.L.]

Great Yarmouth Water [H.L.]

Greenock and Port Glasgow Tramways [H.L.]

Hastings and St. Leonards Gas [H.L.]

Knott End Railway [H.L.]

Lea Bridge District Gas [H.L.]

Loughborough Gas [H.L.]

Lowestoft Water and Gas [H.L.]

Norfolk Estuary [H.L.]

North-Eastern Railway [H.L.]

Port Talbot Railway and Docks [H.L.]

Rushden and Higham Ferrars District Gas [H.L.]

St. Neots Water [H.L.]

South Hants Water [H.L.]

Transvaal Mortgage Loan and Finance Company [H.L.]

West Highland Railway [H.L.]

Yeadon and Guiseley Gas [H.L.]

Aberdeen Joint Passenger Station [H.L.]

Bexhill and St. Leonards Tramroads [H.L.]

Bristol Gas [H.L.]

Douglas and Sanquhar Railway [H.L.]

Great Eastern Railway (General Powers) [H.L.]

London and South-Western Railway [H.L.]

1406

Muirkirk, Mauchline, and Dalmellington Railway [H.L.]

Rochdale Canal [H.L.]

St. Albans Gas [H.L.]

Skipton Gas [H.L.]

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

LONDON HOSPITAL BILL [H.L.]
To be read a second time on Tuesday the 28th instant.
HARBOUR AND DOCK RATES (BRISTOL, ETC.) BILL [H.L.]
To be read a second time on Monday the 6th of March next.

GLASGOW, MOTHERWELL, AND SANQUHAR RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House, That the promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill; Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.

Aberdeen Corporation Bill [H.L.]

Aberdeen Harbour Bill [H.L.]

Arbroath Corporation Gas Bill [H.L.]

Barton-on-Sea Water Bill [H.L.]

Birkenhead Corporation Bill [H.L.]

Bognor Urban District Water Bill [H.L.]

Bristol Floods Prevention Bill [H.L.]

Bury Corporation Bill [H.L.]

Bury Corporation Water Bill [H.L.]

Church Stretton Water Bill [H.L.]

Clyde Navigation Bill [H.L.]

Coalville Urban District Gas Bill [H.L.]

Cobham Gas Bill [H.L.]

Colonial and Foreign Banks Guarantee Fund Bill [H.L.]

Cromer Protection Bill [H.L.]

Dumbarton Burgh Bill [H.L.]

Dundee Gas, Tramways, and Extension Bill [H.L.]

Fylde Water Board Bill [H.L.]

Gainsborough Urban District Council (Gas) Bill [H.L.]

Glasgow Corporation (Tramways, etc.) Bill.[H.L.]

Glasgow Corporation (Gas and Water) Bill [H.L.]

Glastonbury Water Bill [H.L.]

Great Yarmouth Corporation Bill [H.L.]

1407

Great Yarmouth Pier Bill [H.L.]

Grosvenor Chapel (London) Bill [H.L.]

Hampstead Church (Emmanuel, West End) Bill [H.L.]

Hastings Corporation Tramways Bill [H.L.]

Hastings Harbour Bill [H.L.]

Humber Conservancy Bill [H.L.]

Infant Orphan Asylum Bill [H.L.]

Inverness Harbour Bill [H.L.]

Kew Bridge Bill [H.L.]

Kirkcaldy Corporation and Tramways Bill [H.L.]

Lanarkshire (Middle Ward District) Water Bill [H.L.]

Leigh-on-Sea Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]

Llanelly Harbour and Pontardulais Railway Bill [H.L.]

Loughborough Corporation Bill [H.L.]

Manchester Corporation Tramways Bill [H.L.]

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Finance) Bill [H.L.]

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Pilotage) Bill [H.L.]

Mid-Kent Gas Bill [H.L.]

Moss Side Urban District Council (Tramways) Bill [H.L.]

Nene Valley Water Bill [H.L.]

Oldham Corporation Bill [H.L.]

Perth Water, Police, and Gas Bill [H.L.]

Portsmouth Corporation Bill [H.L.]

Queen's Ferry Bridge Bill [H.L.]

Rawtenstall Corporation Water Bill [H.L.]

Renfrew Burgh and Harbour Extension Bill [H.L.]

Salford Corporation Bill [H.L.]

Skipton Urban District Gas Bill [H.L.]

Southampton Corporation Water Bill [H.L.]

Stockton and Middlesbrough Water Bill [H.L.]

Stretfotd Urban District Council (Tramways) Bill [H.L.]

Sunderland Corporation Bill [H.L.]

Wakefield Corporation Bill [H.L.]

Wallasey Tramways and Improvements Bill [H.L.]

Whitehaven Corporation Bill [H.L.]

Wick and Pulteney Harbours Bill [H.L.]

Wishaw Water Bill [H.L.]

Withington Urban District Council (Tramways) Bill [H.L.]

1408

Wolverhampton Corporation Bill [H.L.]

Workington Corporation Water Bill [H.L.]

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TREATY SERIES, No. 3 (1893).
  Exchange of Notes between Great Britain and Portugal, relative to the delimitation of the frontier between the British and Portuguese Possessions in Amatongaland; Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
Seventh Annual Report of proceedings of the Inspection Committee, for the year ended 20th November 1898; with appendices; Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDS) ACT, 1872.
Petition for amendment of; of Corporation of Reigate; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
BILL PRESENTED: FIRST READING.

  MONEY LENDING.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, it may be in your recollection that in the year 1897 the House of Commons appointed a Committee to inquire into the alleged evils attendant on the systems of money lending by professional money lenders at high rates of interest or under oppressive conditions as to repayment. That Committee was re-appointed in 1898. It held many sittings, it examined a large number of representative witnesses, including many distinguished Judges of the High Court

  1409
  and the County Courts, it examined a large number of officers of the Bankruptcy Court and men who, from their associations, have practical knowledge of the question of money lending, and it certainly most assiduously discharged the duties which were cast upon it. The Report of the Committee was a very full and comprehensive Report. It disclosed that great evils affecting the community existed, and those evils were particularised, and remedies were suggested. The principal finding—if I may so term it—of the Committee was as follows:—
  "Your Committee have unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that the system of money lending by professional money lenders at high rates of interest is productive of crime, bankruptcy, unfair advantage over the other creditors of the borrower, extortion from the borrower's family and friends, and other serious injuries to the community."
  My Lords, after reading the evidence that was given during the two Sessions of Parliament before the Committee, Her Majesty's Government came to the conclusion that the Report was well founded, and the question then arose: Was this grave and serious matter to be allowed to rest where it had fallen, or was it the duty of the Legislature to attempt to deal with this evil by practical legislation? The latter view prevailed in the opinion of the Government, and it is in accordance with that opinion, which in its results casts, not upon a private Member, but upon the authorised Government, the duty of meeting the great evil, that the Bill which will be introduced into your Lordships' House to-night is placed before you. The matter is a little complicated, and has to be very carefully dealt with, not only in justice to the money lenders themselves, not only to protect the interests of those who suffer from money lenders, but also in order that good care may be taken that important branches of the community should not suffer from the legislation which is not intended to affect them. And therefore it is that I am asking your Lordships' permission to make a brief statement about the objects that are in view when this legislation is proposed to you and the effect of the proposed legislation. If I do not make this statement, I fear some misunderstanding might exist as to the in-
  1410
  tention of both of the promoters of this Bill, and also the effect the Bill would have on the public. I do not, of course, intend to refer in any detail—perhaps not at all—to the evidence that was given before the Committee, but if any of you would take, I won't say the trouble, but would occupy a certain amount of time in reading this evidence, or some portion of it, I am certain it would repay you. It discloses a state of facts which, I believe, few persons are aware of. There may be some—those who have had judicial experience, or those who have practised in our Courts of Law—who from time to time have learned of cases representing great hardships and great injury. But the systematic proceedings of these money lenders—a well-known trade now, I believe—never were brought to the knowledge of the public until this Committee sat and examined the different witnesses who, from different points of view, placed the real facts of the case before them. My Lords, the result of the evidence shows that there are certain specific evils that have to be dealt with. The first is that these money lenders do not trade in their own names. You never know who they are. They trade under false names, and they trade under different names. One witness admitted that he traded under seven different aliases, and there was one case in which a man traded under 34 aliases. They also trade in different towns under different and alluring designations, such as the Clerical and Medical Mutual Help Association, and other names of a benevolent character, so as to induce those who wish to borrow to believe that they are dealing with persons who have almost an uninterested object in view in affording assistance. That is an evil that displays itself in a practical way. The borrower owes money to A. A insists upon his bond, and the borrower goes to B. B lends him money to pay A, and then the borrower goes to C to borrow money to pay B, until his resources are known to someone to be exhausted, and then it is found that the seven or eight persons he has been borrowing money successively from represent only one person trading in different names. The second great evil is that specious incentives, almost entirely false sometimes, are held out to induce persons to borrow, believing they

  1411
  are borrowing' on terms that will be by no means onerous. The third evil is that when the borrower has agreed to borrow bargains, as the law terms them, of a hard and unconscionable nature are made with the borrower. Advantage is taken of his absolute necessity, of his impossibility to continue without some financial assistance. Then when these unconscionable bargains are made they are sometimes made without any explanation of them being given to the borrrower. He is often kept in ignorance of the terms of the contract until the fatal day for repayment arrives, and, lastly, when this hard and unconscionable bargain, deceptive and ambiguous in its terms, has to be fulfilled, then without mercy, perhaps, too, without even justice, to the uttermost farthing and the uttermost extent, the obligation is carried out against the borrower. Now, my Lords, these are evils that are growing. The law at present throws no obstacle—at least no direct obstacle—in the way of this trade being carried on, and the question now arises, if it should meet the approval of the Legislature that the system should be dealt with, how ought we to deal with these evils so as to either destroy them or mitigate them without injury to the community that take no part in them? Of course, the first objection—a general one—is to our dealing with the subject at all. The principle of legislation of comparatively recent times has been to abolish all restraint upon lending and borrowing. We abolished in the year 1854 the old Usury Laws, and I have heard many who have said, when the suggestion was made that you should deal with these money-lenders, that you would be returning to the old system of restriction upon the rate of interest, and that you would be virtually reimposing the Usury Laws. That is not so. There is no intention in any way, either actual or in principle, to re-enact the Usury Laws, which were repealed because they put restraint upon our commerce and trade. You will recollect that the Statute of Anne prevented anyone from lending at a higher rate than 5 per cent. That was found to be so unnatural to the ordinary course of trade that you were bound to give special exemption to the Directors of the Bank of England, because they
  1412
  could not act as bankers in these great commercial centres if they could only obtain money at the rate of 5 per cent. You will find that those who argued for the abolition of the Usury Laws—men like Adam Smith and Jeremy Bentham—always put their case in favour of abolition upon the view that commerce could not proceed, because money was often worth more than 5 per cent. In his celebrated lecture in 1763, Adam Smith argued, as it were, in favour of free trade in money. He put the real value of money at what it was worth, and said that what the borrower could afford to give and what the lender was entitled to receive should depend principally on the amount of money in the market, the same as any other commodity. Jeremy Bentham and the Committee of the House of Commons took the same view, and asked, in the interests of the fair man of commerce, that he should be allowed to obtain his money at a fair rate of interest, according to what it was worth. These men were arguing on behalf of a great economic principle. Not one of those who sat on the Committee of 1818, not one who took part in the Debates in the Houses of Parliament on the abolition of the Usury Laws, ever contemplated that the abolition of those laws would call into existence a set of men who lived and thrived upon the necessities, of their neighbours, and who took advantage of the weakness of a portion of the community to act in a cruel and exacting manner. Apart from any question of the revival of the Usury Laws, it is now sought to provide a direct and particular remedy against a great wrong which has grown up of late years and who never in the contemplation of those who instituted free trade in money. I will now, my Lords, with your permission, state the remedy which this Bill, it is hoped, will supply. I will deal with the evils step by step, and I hope I shall be able to show that this Bill will be sufficient to meet them, and yet not go beyond the necessities of the case. The first evil I stated was that you were, and the borrower was, always unable to know who the lender is. My Lords, we propose that every person carrying on the business of a money-lender shall be registered. I do not suggest there should be a licence. That is a useless addition to a register, but we ask that

  1413
  he should be registered. This is not a thing unknown to our Statute Book. There are many persons who are registered, such as pawnbrokers and marinestore dealers. Indirectly all the professions are registered, and do not think there can be any objection to a man who is an honest man being registered. In order then that a money-lender shall not carry on his trade under an absolutely false and deceptive name, we purpose making a proposition that he shall be registered. Having used the word "money-lender," I would wish at once to meet a difficulty which has to be dealt with, and is not a slight one. I have said that money-lenders are to be registered. The natural question arises, Who is a money-lender? I am aware that objection has been taken to the possibility of our dealing with the class of persons who are the subject of this Bill lest we should also deal with those who legitimately lend money, and lend it under conditions and terms which render the lending a benefit to the community. This difficulty arose before the Committee, and many distinguished men were asked to define the word "money-lender." Some of them replied that a definition was not necessary. A professional money-lender is, they said, a known term, and the Judges must determine whether a man is a money-lender or not. I am afraid that will not do. We ought to inform the public who are to be regarded as moneylenders. We must define them. Some of the witnesses said they were unable to define a money-lender, but the Government draughtsman would be able to define him without any difficulty whatever. I can inform the House that the Government draughtsman has found the greatest difficulty in defining a moneylender. But we have done our best, and, subject to the revision and consideration which I hope your Lordships will afford to our definition, I hope we have to some extent solved the problem. I cannot define a money-lender affirmatively, but I hope to do so by exclusion. The persons you wish to exclude are the persons who do in fact lend money in the way of commerce and financial dealing, yet who do not come within that class colloquially known as money-lenders. What I propose is, that "money-lender" in this Act shall in-
  1414
  clude every person who carried on the business of money-lending or advertises or announces himself or holds himself out in any way as carrying on that business, but shall not include any pawnbroker or banker or other person carrying on a commercial or general financial business in the course or conduct of which he may lend money. I cannot say that is a perfect definition, but our object has been to provide a sufficient protection to those who are legitimate lenders of money, and as we shall gladly receive any suggestion for strengthening that definition, I hope and believe it will be found sufficient for the object we have in view. Having registered these gentlemen, we shall insist that they shall trade in one name only; they shall not use aliases for the purpose of lending money. The money-lender shall take security in his own name only, and that security shall bear on the face of it the name of (A. B.) as the moneylender. If the form is not gone through, even a negotiable security shall be void except against the moneylender himself. The Bill also provides that a copy of the contract shall be given to the borrower, so that he shall know positively the nature of the bargain he has entered into. I hope that so far the Bill has no injustice in it. I cannot conceive that any one of these professional money-lenders can object to registration after the absolute proof that has been given of their deceptive conduct and of the harsh bargains they have made with borrowers whom they very often themselves select because they are not persons of business habits who would be likely to make themselves fully acquainted with the terms of the contracts into which they enter. These are matters of procedure. I now come to the more serious question of how these hard and unconscionable bargains are so to be considered and dealt with as to protect the persons who have entered into them from the exacting nature of their bargains. My Lords, let me say that if the provisions of this Bill should startle anyone, it would be well for them to consider what our present power is to review these contracts. It is supposed, my Lords, that the Courts of Law and Equity cannot touch these contracts, and in one sense that is true. But looking back on the history of the power

  1415
  of the Courts of Equity, in anther sense it is an incorrect view. My Lords, we start with a very old case in our books, which every student of the law has read and delights in reading. I refer to the case of a man who sold his horse and brought an action for the recovery of the price. He said a contract was entered into, and it was not denied, that the buyer of the horse should pay for it by giving first one corn of barley for the first nail in the horse's shoes, two for the second, four for the third, and so on, multiplying successively until the thirty-second nail was reached, when the buyer owed the seller of the horse 510 quarters of barley. But the sturdy old Chief Justice then said, "That will not do. Gentlemen of the jury, you must tell me what is the value of the horse." The jury having said the value of the horse was £8 only, the Judge ordered this sum to be paid, and said he would not have such bargains enforced in his Court. That was a relief from a hard and unconscionable bargain. Again, our rules of equity were set up with great clearness and force by Lord Hardwick as Chancellor in 1750, when he relieved a seller of a reversion from what he thought to be an unconscionable bargain, but for some reason that relief was afforded only to heirs in expectancy and reversionary interest, and directly it was found that the reversion had been sold at an inadequate price, only then was that sale set aside until a Statute was passed in 1867 altering the law in that respect. In 1880, I think it was, that power of relief was extended. A Judge in a case ruled that if a contract was made to lend money at a high rate of interest, knowing the borrower could not pay, and that the payment would be obtained by bringing pressure to bear upon the family and the friends of the borrower, that was a species of blackmail that would not be allowed, and the contract was set aside. See how very nearly we approach to the relief that ought to be given, as we think, to the impecunious and necessitous borrower as against the exacting and deceptive money-lender. The Bill proposes to give power to the Courts to review and go behind any contract with a money-lender, and to relieve the borrower where the burden of the contract he has undertaken is totally dis-
  1416
  proportionate to the amount of benefit he receives—where, in short, it is a hard, unconscionable, and exacting bargain. Whenever a money-lender endeavours to enforce his contract, the Court where he seeks to enforce it shall have certain powers to review, and if he does not seek to enforce it, but relies on his security, then the debtor shall have power to make the application. I do not think that such an application should be made, or that defence set up, without good reason. It is provided, therefore, that where the interest, charged is less than 10 per cent. per annum, the Court shall not exercise any power. We should not wish that contracts moderate in their character should be reviewed, and therefore the 10 per cent. limit would form the datum line upon which this jurisdiction will be founded. Now, my Lords, having given this power of review, of course the wording of such a power has to be carefully considered, but the substance of what, we propose is that where, as I have said, the interest charged in respect to the loan exceeds the rate of 10 per cent. per annum, or where the amounts charged for expenses, inquiries, fines or any other charges are excessive, the Court may reopen the transaction, and may, notwithstanding any statement of account settled or agreed upon, reopen such settled account and find the amount that, according to the circumstances of the case, shall be regarded by the Court as a fair sum to be paid. The same power is given to the Registrar in Bankruptcy when proof comes for a debt to say at what sum it should be made. I must not, weary you with this explanatory statement, but this is a slight advance upon the powers already existing in the Court of Equity, and I trust It will be the means of proving a great check to those who are now carrying on the business of money-lenders Under existing conditions to know that every contract will be subject to the just and impartial mind of a Judge. Only one other provision—except technical provisions—remains in the Bill. You often see charges made in our Criminal Courts against men who have been borrowing money. The money-lender says to the borrower, "You have made false statements about your reversionary interest being uncharged, and that you had great

  1417
  expectations; you have deceived me, and I will charge you now with obtaining money under false pretences." I do not object to that law, but I maintain that what is just towards the borrower ought to be just also towards the lender; and if the money-lender makes promises which he never intends to fulfil, and uses deceptive words in his advertisements and interviews to induce a man to give his security and become liable to obligations which result in his goods being taken, what we suggest is that he should be subjected to the same measure of law that he often employs against the borrower. Now, my Lords, it may be said that these are very drastic remedies, and in one sense they are; but I think we ought to contemplate the proposal of this Bill as being drastic, and we ought to determine whether we intend that they should have the effect which they may have. My Lords, in the course of the inquiry before the Committee several moneylenders were asked, "What will be the effect upon you if this review of the Courts takes place?" The answer was, by one and all, "It will bring our business to an end." Well, my Lords, I do not contemplate the result of legislation such as this with any fear. If making a man honest and just brings his business to an end, why should we shrink from adopting the proposals contained in this Bill? You must, of course, look at the result of bringing the business of the money-lenders to an end. The Committee took that into consideration, and their report was to the effect that, although they were satisfied that the system was sometimes honestly conducted, they were of opinion that only in rare cases was the person benefited by a loan obtained from the professional money-lender, and that the evil attendant on the system far outweighed the good. It is true that a few men here and there may be saved from the immediate evil of the necessity of money by recourse to the money-lender, but many more are ruined when once they enter into contracts with these men. Some 200 years ago, I think it was, Mr. Addison, describing the methods of one of these money-lenders, said:
  "He deals with you in the present tense; he lends you money in the conditional mood; he keeps you in the subjunctive; and he ruins you in the future."
  1418
  It is possible that ho spoke like the noble Earl who seconded the Address a few nights ago in this House—namely, from his heart; but the statement made by Mr. Addison 200 years ago is perfectly true to-day. Tale after tale is to be told of the impossibility of men fulfilling their obligations, and therefore ruin is their certain and complete fate I hope you will not think that I am digressing if I suggest to your Lordships that whilst by legislation we cannot find an equivalent to the professional money-lenders lending small sums to very needy borrowers, yet a great deal can be done in that direction by individual effort. My Lords, in the proceedings before the Committee—I should not mention the subject if the evidence had not been given—a very considerable body of evidence was given, especially by Professor Bottomley, as to the system that exists to an almost universal extent in Germany, and which happily is beginning to find its way into this country. In 2,880 rural parishes in Germany there exists what are termed Loan Banks. The small tradesmen form themselves into a bank. They agree to become lenders to each other and no person can borrow except those who are members of the bank. A man borrows upon his own simple statement that he will repay, backed by two sureties, who are known to be solvent people, and the sums borrowed vary from 5s. to £20. This process was so successful that in 1897 the turnover of these banks amounted to 133,000,000 marks, or £11,000,000 sterling in one year. This was done without one single instance of default, without any security of a bill of sale or any bond being given upon which execution could be issued at the rate of 5 per cent. A few banks of this kind have been started in this country, especially by the honourable Member for Chester, and wherever they have been started they have proved successful. I ask your Lordships to contrast such a system as this with the prevalent system of money-lenders taking sometimes as high a rate of interest as 3,000 per cent. per annum, and never showing the slightest consideration for those who enter into these contracts. I fear, my Lords, I have made a long statement, but I was anxious that the Bill should not go forth to the public as a harsh and unnecessary Measure,

  1419
  and I trust, when it comes before your Lordships, that this Measure, which ought to be dealt with in no off-hand manner, will receive the fullest consideration at your hands, and that the Government will be enabled to make it a Measure which shall be of benefit to the country generally.
  Question put that the Bill be read a first time.
  Motion agreed to.

THE EDUCATIONAL MEASURES.
LORD NORTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Duke, the Lord President of the Council, if he can inform the House when he hopes to introduce his Education Bill.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The DUKE of DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, it might possibly lead to some misapprehension if I did not make a slight correction, which I think ought to be made, in the terms of the question of my noble Friend. He describes the Bill which is referred to in the Queen's Speech as an Education Bill. Now, the Bills which I introduced last year were for the creation of a Board of Education and for the registration of teachers. Neither of those Bills can properly be described as an Education Bill. The Measure which I shall introduce will not, so far as I am at present aware, go beyond the scope of the Bill which I introduced to this House last year. As to the time when I hope to introduce the Bill, it may be remembered that in making a statement on the subject last year I expressed the hope that the Measures which I then laid on the Table of the House would receive a certain amount of examination and criticism during the Recess. Owing to the time at which that statement was made, anything of the nature of examination and criticism was delayed for a considerable period, and it was only very recently that I received some suggestions from some most important bodies connected with and interested in education. Of course, it is my desire as far as possible to give full consideration to any suggestions of that character which I may receive, and this fact has delayed to a certain extent the preparation of the
1420
Bill, which I think will probably contain some minor alteration of the Measure which I laid on the Table of the House last year. However, I hope that in the course of this or, at the latest, of the following week I may be able to present a Bill, and at the same time to name the day when the Second Reading will be taken.

STANDING COMMITTEE.
Report from the Committee of Chairmen of the Standing Committee, That they have appointed the Earl of Kimberley Chairman of the Standing Committee; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at Twelve minutes past Five of the clock.