Sitting of 27 April 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the

  445
  case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  London County Council (Money) Bill. Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER 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, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill, read a second time, and committed.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill, reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill, reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to Lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No 3) Bill, reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
  Local Government Provisional Order (Housing of the Working Classes) Bill, reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
  Queensland Investment and Land Mortgage Bill [Lords], reported, with
  446
  Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Western Trust Bill [Lords], reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time.
  North Eastern Railway Bill, reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES REGULATION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Oakenthorpes; Wooley; Darfield; Skelmersdale; Bolsover; Seymour; Bower: Bulwell; Treeson; Stubbin (No. 1); Pemberton; Benarty; Lassodie; Methilhill; Cardenden; Leven; Wellwood; Dunnikeir; Coaltown of Wemyss; Rosebank; West Wemyss; Donibristle; East Wemyss; Lochgelly; Wellsgreen; Fordell; Windygates; Oakley; Little Raith; Cowdenbeath; Blairhall; Townhill; Kirkford; Buckhaven; Balgonie; and Birley (No. 2.) Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Shepping Wycombe; and West Bromwich; to lie upon the Table.
  DETENTION OF POOR PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Kirriemuir, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING LAW (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL) BILL.
  Petitions against: from Eccles; Rodley; and Highgate; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: from Glasford; and Dunoon; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petition from Woolwich, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES.
  Petition from Long Eaton, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF ADULTERATED BUTTER BILL.
  Petition from Sheerness, against to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Devizes, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADES DISPUTES BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Oakenthorpes; Wooley; Darfield Main; Skelmersdale; Bolsover; Seymour; Bulwell; Birley (No. 2); Treeton; Stubbin (No. 1); Pemberton; Methilhill; Cardenden; Leven; Wellwood; Dunnikeir; Coaltown of Wemyss; Rosebank; Donibristle; East Wemyss; Lochgelly; West Wemyss; Wellsgreen; Fordell; Windygates; Oakley; Cowdenbeath; Little Raith; Blairhall; Townhill; Kirkford; Balgonie; Buckhaven; Benarty; and Lassodie Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  POST OFFICE (CONTRACT FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF MAILS BETWEEN GLASGOW, GREENOCK, AND CAMPBELTOWN).
  Copy ordered, "of the Contract dated the 9th day of March, 1903, with the Campbeltown and Glasgow Steam Packet Joint Stock Company, Limited, for the conveyance of mails between Glasgow, Greenock, and Campbeltown; together with a Copy of the Treasury Minute thereon dated the 30th day of March, 1903."—(Mr. Arthur Elliot.)

  ULTIMUS HÆRES (SCOTLAND) (ACCOUNT AND LIST OF ESTATES).
  Return ordered, "of Abstract Account of the Receipts and Payments of the King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Scotland, in the year ended the 31st day of December, 1902, in the Administration of Estates and the Treasure Trove on behalf of the Crown."
  "And, of Alphabetical List of Estates which fell to the Crown as Ultimus Hæres in Scotland, administered by the King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer, in the same year."—(Mr. Arthur Elliot.)

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1897.
  Copy presented, of Fifth Report to the Secretary for Scotland of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Board [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANIES.
  Copy presented, of Statements of Accounts, and of Life Assurance and Annuity Business and Abstracts of Actuarial Reports, deposited with the Board of Trade during the year ended 31st December, 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 123.]
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Report of Proceedings of the Board of Trade up to the 31st December, 1902, and of the Proceedings of the Light Railway Commissioners up to the same date [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 124.]
  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Return of the number of Evictions in Ireland for the quarter ended 31st March, 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 6th April; Mr. Cullinan]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 125.]
  SEA AND COAST FISHERIES FUND (IRELAND) (NON-CONGESTED DISTRICTS).
  Account presented, for the year ended 31st December, 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SOUTH AFRICA.
  Copy presented, of further Papers relating to the Progress of Administration in the Transvaal [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  QUEENSLAND.
  Copy presented, of Correspondence relating to The Pacific Island Labourers' Act, 1901, of the Commonwealth of Australia [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE 1903–4.
  Estimate presented, of the additional amount required in the year ending 31st March, 1904, to pay a Special Gratuity on Retirement (Superannuation and Retired Allowances) [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 126.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2961 to 2963 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  WARS IN SOUTH AFRICA AND CHINA (COST AND EXPENDITURE).
  Return ordered, "showing (1) the estimated amount of War Charges in South Africa and China incurred up to the 31st day of March, 1903; (2) how these charges have been met; and (3) how the money borrowed has been raised (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 155, of Session 1902)."—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
QUESTION'S AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Transfer of Schools.
  MR. GEORGE KENYON: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, seeing that the transfer of schools by way of lease or otherwise for a year or term of years makes such schools provided schools, notwithstanding any clause in any agreement to the contrary, he will state whether a voluntary schools association has the power to transfer schools, without the consent in writing of a majority of managers of each school, any by-laws of such association notwithstanding; and whether the Board of Education will take care that these provisions of the Act are clearly made known to managers and trustees.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The persons who can transfer a school held under trust are, by 33 and 34 Vic, c. 75, s. 23, the managers of the school, subject in certain cases to the assent of certain persons in the manner provided by the section. The answer to the Question is therefore in the negative. The Board see no reason for giving any special information on the subject.

  State Purchase of Indian Railways.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY (: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, seeing that the shareholders of the East Indian Railway in 1880, the Eastern Bengal Railway in 1884, and the Scinde Railway in 1886, were paid off in annuity stock and in Government stock by Act of Parliament, and in amounts being the full equivalent of the average market value of the properties appropriated by the State, and that the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company's settlement in 1900 resulted in the proprietors receiving annuity stock valued at £150 instead of the approved Parliamentary assessed average value of £174 per £100 stock; and whether, seeing that the purchase clauses of these four, and of the Bombay Railway in 1905, and that of the Madras Railway Company in 1907, are practically similar, and in view of the protest made on 31st March on behalf of trustees, banks, insurance companies, and other shareholders by the chairmen of the Bombay Railway Company and the Madras Railway Company, as to the character of this Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company settlement and its injurious effect on their stock, arising from the uncertainty regarding their future treatment, he will consider the advisability of appointing a Select Committee to decide which of these precedents should be followed in 1905 and 1907.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) If it should be decided to purchase either of the two lines in question, and to effect the purchase by means of an annuity, it would, I think, at the time of purchase, be desirable to consider the question whether the power vested by statute in the Secretary of State for India in Council of creating capital stock for the redemption of the annuity should be exercised. I can, however, hold out no prospect that the decision of this question will be entrusted to a Select Committee of this House or to anybody other than the Secretary of State in Council, to whom the control of the revenues of India is by law confided.

  Grand National Steeplechase—Cruelty to Horses.
  MR. LOUGH: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been

  451
  called to the circumstances under which the Grand National Steeplechase was run this year; whether he is aware that out of twenty-three horses starting only ten finished, that many of the horses fell at various fences, that one horse broke its leg and was destroyed on the course, that another was removed suffering from staggers, and a third from being unduly spurred; whether any inspectors under the Home Office were in attendance, and if it is possible for him to take any steps in connection with such races to prevent cruelty to the animals.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I understand that the facts of the case are substantially as stated in the Question. No inspectors under the Home Office were present, nor have I any inspectors at my disposal for such a purpose. The only Government inspectors whom there is power to appoint in connection with the prevention of cruelty to animals are those under the Act of 1876, who are concerned solely with experiments commonly known under the title of vivisection. The ordinary law for the prevention of cruelty can be set in motion by anyone, and there is no action which I can take in the matter.

  Unproductive Labour in Prisons.
  MR. FLOWER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state the number of cranks, tread wheels, and other forms of unproductive labour at present in use in His Majesty's prisons.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) All tread wheels were abolished as a means of labour in His Majesty's prisons as from 1st April, 1902, and there are no cranks or other forms of unproductive labour now in use. At five prisons the machinery of wheels and cranks is still in use as a means of pumping water or flushing drains, but employment on this duty is for ordinary prison service and is no longer a prescribed form of hard labour.

  Children in Metropolitan Poor Law Institutions.
  MR. FLOWER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board
  452
  whether he will state the number of children in Metropolitan Poor Law schools, workhouses, and infirmaries respectively at the date of the last Return.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) According to the Returns for the second week in April the figures are as follows: District and separate Poor Law schools, 9,277; Infirmaries and sick asylums, 2,000; Workhouses, 1,367. 732 of the children in workhouses are less than three years old, while of those in infirmaries more than 750 are under that age.

  Vaccination Registers at Poplar.
  MR. GUTHRIE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether his attention has been called to a report made by a Committee of the Poplar Guardians with respect to the entries made in the vaccination registers for the Lady Day, 1902, quarter; and whether he will direct an investigation into the matter, or what action he proposes to take on the report.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) My attention has been called to the report referred to. The number of cases included in the registers for the quarter ended at Lady Day, 1902, amounted to upwards of 10,000, and I could not undertake to cause an investigation to be made into all these cases. One of the medical inspectors of my Department will, however, shortly visit the union for the purpose of making the ordinary inspection of the work of vaccination. He would in the usual course inquire generally into the action of the public vaccinators in making the entries in their registers, and I have directed that in the present case he shall make a special report to me on the subject.

  Sorting Clerks and Telegraphists—Return of Promotions.
  MR. JACOBY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the Return, issued in 1899, dealing with the promotions of sorting clerks and telegraphists in the provinces, can be brought up to the date of 31st December, 1902, for the purposes of comparison.

  453
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I beg to refer the hon. Member to my answer given to him to a similar Question, on the 11th December last.† The circumstances have not changed.

  London and North Western Railway— Carriage Arrangements for Goods.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the fact that the London and North Western Railway Company accept goods carriage forward for delivery to consignees on their line of railway, and deliver the goods charging the amount of the railway carriage to the consignees, and, in the event of their failure to pay such carriage, take legal action to recover I the railway carriage from the senders; and, if so, will he take measures to put a stop to such practices.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I am not sure whether the suggestion of the hon. Member is that railway companies should be debarred from making the ordinary arrangements for the convenience of traders under which goods are accepted "carriage forward," or whether they should be prevented from invoking the assistance of the Courts in enforcing payment of debts. I am not in a position to take any action in either direction. If the legality of any condition upon which goods are accepted for carriage by railway is questioned it is a matter which falls within the jurisdiction of the Courts of Law.

  Coal Duty—Incorrect Declarations.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has formed any estimate of the amount of loss to the revenue through coal of a higher value than 6s. per ton being declared upon export to be of a value not exceeding that sum; if he can state at which, ports the practice of avoiding payment of the duty is most common; and whether he proposes to make any inquiries into the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) If there be any loss to the revenue from the cause mentioned by the hon. Member I cannot
  †See (4) Debates, cxvi., 906.
  454
  form any estimate of it. The Customs authorities take every precaution they can to guard against infringement of the law, and I doubt if further special inquiries would be of any use.

  Pensions for Widows of Seamen Killed on Service in Time of Peace.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he can give any intimation of his intention of dealing with the case of widows of seamen and marines who lose their lives on service in time of peace.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) I am in communication with the Admiralty ort the subject.

  Corn Tax—Yield for Year 1902–3.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the yield of the shilling registration fee on foreign corn, meal, and flour entering the United Kingdom in the last fiscal year; and, if the remission of the duty proposed in the Budget extends to flour, or only applies to the raw material for the manufacture of flour.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) The duty imposed on imported grain, flour, etc., by The Finance Act, 1902, yielded £2,346,796 during the financial year 1902–3. The remission of duty recently proposed applies to all goods named in the First Schedule to the Act quoted.

  Ireland—Pollution of the River Bann
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that several of the tributaries of the River Bann for salmon and trout, including the Six mile water and the Maine and its tributaries (particularly the Kells), are being so polluted by the discharge of dye stuffs and chemical matter from various mills as to endanger the existence of fish life in these waters; whether the attention of the fishery authorities in Ireland has been called to the effect of the practice of abstracting water from these rivers; and whether, in view of the effect upon fishermen along the banks of Lough Neagh of

  455
  these proceedings, and of the fact that since 1885 the fisheries of the Coleraine district have decreased by over 50 percent., he will give directions for an investigation into these matters.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am informed that the fact is as stated in the first part of the Question. Under Section 80 of 5 and 6 Vic, c. 106, it is illegal to cause to flow into a river or lake any dye-stuff or other matter that may be poisonous to fish. It is the duty of the Local Boards of Conservators to enforce the law in this respect. It is not within the power of the Department of Agriculture to take any steps with a view to preventing the abstraction of water from the rivers mentioned.

  Recovery of Instalments of Annuities under the Purchase Act.
  MR. GEORGE FABER: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now able to state the total number of cases in which proceedings have been instituted, by civil bill or otherwise, for the recovery of instalments of annuities due under the Purchase Acts, 1885–88 and 1891–96.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) A Return showing the number of cases referred for legal proceedings for the recovery of instalments due under the Land Purchase Acts, 1885–88, and 1891–96.

  I.—Acts of 1885–88.

  Number of Payers.

  Number in Arrear.

  Gale Day Due.

  22,264

  1,110

  1st November, 1893

  23,432

  1,460

  1st May, 1894

  24,324

  1,355

  1st November, 1894

  24,751

  1,945

  1st May, 1895

  24,862

  1,250

  1st November, 1895

  24,891

  1,606

  1st May, 1896

  24,900

  1,579

  1st November, 1896

  24,910

  1,370

  1st May, 1897

  24,930

  1,490

  1st November, 1897

  25,000

  1,898

  1st May, 1898

  25,000

  1,997

  1st November, 1898

  25,280

  1,785

  1st May, 1899

  25,280

  1,875

  1st November, 1899

  25,280

  1,710

  1st May, 1900

  25,280

  1,604

  1st November, 1900

  25,280

  1,673

  1st May, 1901

  25,280

  1,720

  1st November, 1901

  25,280

  1,663

  1st May, 1902

  25,280

  1,320

  1st November, 1902

  II.—Acts of 1891–96.

  Number of Payers.

  Number in Arrear.

  Gale Day Due.

  3,065

  29

  1st November, 1894

  4,270

  51

  1st May, 1895

  5,202

  65

  1st November, 1895

  6,043

  104

  1st May, 1896

  7,005

  110

  1st November, 1896

  7,665

  150

  1st May, 1897

  9,644

  190

  1st November, 1897

  11,729

  341

  1st May, 1898

  14,374

  406

  1st November, 1898

  17,606

  391

  1st May, 1899

  19,725

  420

  1st November, 1899

  22,229

  553

  1st May, 1900

  25,229

  449

  1st November, 1900

  30,042

  674

  1st May, 1901

  34,683

  798

  1st November, 1901

  37,442

  941

  1st May, 1902

  40,601

  754

  1st November, 1902

  There are no materials available in the office of the Land Commission which would enable the information in this Return to be given for the period antecedent to 1st November, 1893.

  Limitations of Army Order No. 9.
  MR. JOHN HUTTON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will explain why the Army Order No. 9, of January, 1903, was limited to troops engaged in the operations previous to 3rd March, 1893; and whether he will extend the date so as to include the Sima Relief Column, under Captain Davis, D.S.O., Devonshire Regiment, which started from Bhamo in April, 1893, and which was the last expedition that season.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) This Army Order was drawn up in accordance with the recommendations of the Indian Government, and I think we must adhere to their proposals.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  The Condemned Soldiers at Pretoria.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government will recommend that the clemency of the Crown be exercised in the case of the five men of the Leinster regiment under sentence of death at Pretoria.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, : The Governor, in whom is vested the prerogative of mercy, has, I understand, commuted four of the sentences. In the fifth case he will allow the death sentence to be carried out; that is in the case of the man who fired the fatal shot.

  Sierra Leone—Armament of Coaling Station.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can inform the House what progress has been made with the armament of the coaling station of Sierra Leone; whether he will state how many of the three heavy guns lately sent out are available for practice; and whether the garrison for practising with and manning these guns is on the spot.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,: The whole of the new fixed armaments approved for Sierra Leone have been issued to the station, but the mounting of two of the guns a waits the completion of a work which will be finished early next year. A West Indian Artillery Company is now being raised to complete the artillery personnel of the garrison.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEasked whether two of the guns were not dropped into the sea.
  LORD STANLEY: I do not know that they were.

  30th Pembroke Yeomanry and the War Medal.
  GENERAL LAURIE; I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the 30th Pembroke Yeomanry have not yet received the South African War medal; and whether, in view of the fact that many of the Yeomanry have already received their medals, he will arrange that there shall be no further delay in the issue of the medals to the Pembroke men.
  LORD STANLEY: The medal roll now forwarded by this company, after two applications from the War Office, is so incomplete that fresh rolls will have to be prepared. It must be remembered
  458
  that the checking of the rolls and the subsequent engraving of the individual medals require considerable time, and further, that the rolls must be taken in their proper turn. All possible expedition is being used in the issue of medals.

  Cost of Somaliland Expedition.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what has been the expenditure upon the Somaliland expedition up to the present time; and what is the estimate for the further operations.
  LORD STANLEY: The estimated. expenditure up to the 31st March last is £250,000; and a further £250,000 is. taken in Army Estimates 1903–4.

  Army Guild of the Holy Standard.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORhad the following Question on the Paper: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what is the position which the Army Guild of: the Holy Standard occupies in relation to the Army and the War Office; whether it participates in any way in. votes of public money or has the use of Government buildings; and whether the holding of any official position in this guild by the Chaplain General to the Forces has been recently the subject of Army Regulation. On being called, on to put it, the hon. Member said that as he understood the guild had withdrawn the proposed Requiem Mass at St Paul's which brought it into some notoriety, he would not put the noble Lord to the inconvenience of answering the question.
  LORD STANLEY: Oh, it's no inconvenience. It is as well that the House should know the facts. The Army Guild is a voluntary association of Church of England communicants in the Army. The reply to the other Questions raised is in the negative.

  Army Corps Returns.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will grant the Return respecting the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Army Corps which appears on to-day's. Notice Paper.
  Appended is the Return referred to:
  Army (1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Army Corps,—Address for Return showing the composition and effective strength of the

  1st Army Corps.

  Unit.

  Number of effective soldiers with the Colours, excluding recruits under 6 months' service, sick, deserters, and prisoners.

  Nominal peace establishment.

  Horses.

  Strength

  Establishment.

  1st Cavalry Brigade

  …

  Artillery (by Batteries):

  Horse

  …

  Field

  …

  Infantry:

  First Division:

  1st Brigade

  …

  2nd Brigade

  …

  Second Division:

  3rd Brigade

  …

  4th Brigade

  …

  Third Division:

  5th Brigade

  …

  6th Brigade

  …

  And similarly for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Army Corps.

  1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Army Corps upon any particular day in April, 1903, in the following form:—
  LORD STANLEY: The Return which I promised the House last month will shortly be laid upon the Table, and will include information as regards the 4th Army Corps as well as the other three Army Corp.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Do I understand that the Return will be granted in the form in which I have put it down on the Paper?
  LORD STANLEY: No, I cannot say it will be in that exact form. My right hon. friend made a statement as to the Return he would give.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Is the noble Lord aware that the Secretary of State for War definitely and specifically promised this actual Return between the 15th April and 30th May?
  LORD STANLEY: I am certain that my right hon. friend will give whatever he promised.
  LORD HUGH CECILwas understood to ask if it would be long delayed.
  LORD STANLEY: No it will be given quickly as possible.

  The Service Bullet.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office a question of which I have given him private notice, viz., whether complaints have been received from the General Officer Commanding in Somaliland to the effect that the British force was placed at a disadvantage by the lack of stopping power of the service bullet, and whether he will consider the advisability of supplying the Somaliland Field Force as soon as possible with ammunition more suitable to the conditions of savage warfare.
  LORD STANLEY: No complaints have been received from the General Officer Commanding in Somaliland as to the stopping power of the service bullet, except the reference in the telegram received yesterday. My hon. friend will have observed that it can be claimed for the existing ammunition that a force
  462
  about 200 strong inflicted a loss of 2,000 on the enemy, and we should require clear evidence of the inefficacy of the existing bullet before taking the step indicated. We have cabled for further information.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: Then is it suggested that the complaint, which is undoubtedly printed in General Manning's despatch, is not well founded or requires further explanation?
  LORD STANLEY: I would not like to say that, but it would be rather a big order to commence exchanging the whole of the ammunition we have out there.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I am sorry to say I must press this question. Does not the noble Lord consider that the lives of British officers and men are also a large order?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. The hon. Member cannot argue the matter by interrogations.

  Transport of Military Stores to South Africa.
  MR. CHARLES ALLEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state how many tens of goods have been shipped this year by his Department to South Africa by steamers not belonging to the shipping ring as a result of representations received from the Board of Trade, and at what rate per ton.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. Arnold-Forster,: As the Admiralty has conducted the bulk of the transport work on behalf of the War Office, I have been asked by my right hon. friend to answer this Question. No goods have been shipped to South Africa by the Admiralty on behalf of the War Office or of the Navy during the current year by steamers not belonging to the Conference Lines.

  All-Indian Memorial to Queen Victoria.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Donegal, I beg to ask the Secretary of

  463
  State for India if he can state the amount received up to date in respect of the All-Indian Memorial for the construction of a white marble building on the eastern side of India, on or near the banks of the Hughli; and whether, in case the Calcutta site is not finally decided upon, he will consider the advisability of placing the monumental building near Delhi or Agra, where Indian marbles can be readily obtained, there by avoiding the excessive cost of importing that material from Europe; and will he state what proportions of this fund have been contributed by princes and chiefs who are under the supervision of the Governor-General's agents or other officers of the Political Department, by Zemindars or the privileged or wealthy classes, and by the general public respectively; and whether, in view of the circumstances of India, some appreciable portion of this All-India fund can be applied to productive, remedial, or beneficial purposes.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR INDIA (Earl Percy,): According to the last report received, the total subscriptions up to 20th March last to the Queen Victoria Memorial Fund were Rs. 48,19,861, of which Rs. 18,26,845 were still outstanding. I understand that the Calcutta site has been finally decided upon. The Secretary of State has no information as to the proportions contributed to the Fund by the different classes mentioned in the Question. The fund is not at the disposal of the Government; the purpose to which it is to be applied has been determined by the subscribers.

  Somaliland Military Expenditure before 1898.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what was the amount of money expended from all sources on military expeditions in Somaliland and Juba land prior to 1898.
  EARL PERCY: Prior to 1898 there were no disturbances necessitating expeditions in Juba land, but in Somaliland certain expeditions occurred from time to. time, of which the two more important were against the Aysa in 1889, and
  464
  against the Aida Gallah in 1893. The cost of these expeditions is not separately shown in the accounts of the Protectorate or of the Government of India, but as the forces employed consisted exclusively of troops and police on the spot, the charge thus incurred was inconsiderable.

  Indian Technical and Industrial Schools.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will consent to give the Return on Technical and Industrial Schools in India, mentioned on the Notice Paper this day.
  Appended is the Return referred to:—East India (Technical and Industrial Schools)—Address for Return giving the number of Government technical and industrial schools and classes in India; number of private technical schools and classes; the towns or places where they are situated; the number of students attending the same; the amount of expenditure per year on the Government schools; and the proportion which such amount bears to the aggregate educational grant for the year.
  EARL PERCY: The Government of India are now considering the Report of the Committee appointed last year to inquire into Industrial and Technical Education in India, and I expect shortly to receive copies. As the Report will contain the information desired by the hon. Member, it seems hardly necessary to ask the Government of India to prepare separately the statistics referred to in the Address.

  Concessions in East Africa.
  MR. MALCOLM: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will agree to give the Return respecting East Africa, etc. (Concessions), notice for which stands on to-day's Paper.
  Appended is the Return referred to:—
  East Africa, etc. (Concessions)—Address for Return showing the names of the firms or individuals to whom Concessions have been granted in East Africa

  465
  and Uganda; the exact nature and terms of those Concessions; the prices paid for the same; and the exact localities and areas of their operation.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,: A Return of the concessions granted by His Majesty's Government in the East Africa and Uganda Protectorates is being prepared and will shortly be laid, together with some of the details for which my hon. friend asks. If he should require anything further perhaps he will communicate with me.

  Macedonian Reforms.
  MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to communicate any further information with respect to the steps taken to secure the execution of the joint scheme of reforms in the Macedonian vilayets, with special reference to the provision relating to the establishment of a gendarmerie under European officers.
  LORD CRANBORNE: A fresh and earnest representation urging the sincere execution of the promised reforms has, within the last few days, been made by the Austro-Hungarian and Russian Ambassadors, and has been supported by the representatives of other Powers. The early appointment of European officers to re-organise the gendarmerie has been repeatedly urged on the Ports by His Majesty's Ambassador as of special importance. He has reported that some Swedish instructors have been engaged, but nothing further of a definite character has reached us.

  Venezuelan Dispute.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements have been come to with the Government of Venezuela as to the order in which the claims of the various nations are to be considered by The Hague Arbitration Tribunal; and whether the Venezuelan Government refuses to pay any portion of the war expenses of those nations who lately participated in the blockade of the Venezuelan coast; and, if so, what do those expenses amount to as far as regards the United Kingdom.
  LORD CRANBORNE: The claims of the various nations against Venezuela will not be considered by the Tribunal of Arbitration at The Hague, but by mixed Commissions which will meet at Caracas. The provisions respecting the Commission which is to examine the British claims are contained in Articles III. and IV. of the Protocol signed on 13th February, 1903. As explained in reply to a question on the 21st instant,† negotiations are still proceeding with regard to the terms of the reference to The Hague under Article V. of the Protocol, and no statement can yet be made with regard to the points mentioned in the latter part of the hon. Member's Question.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Do I understand from the noble Lord that the terms of the reference to The Hague Tribunal have not yet been settled?
  LORD CRANBORNE: Yes, that is so.

  Preferential Railway Rates—Inter-Departmental Communications.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he has yet ascertained whether any and, if so, what representations have been made by the Board of Agriculture to the Board of Trade on the subject of preferential railway rates; and, if such communications have been made, whether he intends to make any representations to the railway companies concerned on the subject.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,: Since I replied to a question on the subject of preferential railway rates for agricultural produce put to me on the 3rd June last,‡by the hon. Member for the Spalding Division of Lincolnshire, I find that the Board of Trade received a letter from the Board of Agriculture dated June 18th, dealing with such rates, and asking for certain information principally upon points of law. The Board of Trade replied on the 25th of the same month giving the information desired. I have not received from the Board of Agriculture any instances of
  †See page 8.
  ‡See (4) Debates, cvii., 1278.

  467
  alleged preferential rates given to imported traffic which could be used for the purposes of such an inquiry as that desired by the hon. Member for the Spalding Division, or in regard to which the Board of Trade have been asked to exercise their powers under Section 31 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888. I may perhaps take this opportunity of explaining that the apparent difference between the statements made last Wednesday in the debate on the Board of Trade Vote, by myself and my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Agriculture, whose illness we all so much regret, really arose out of a misunderstanding. I had in my mind the reference by the Board of Agriculture to the Board of Trade of complaints by traders on which the Board of Agriculture desired us to take action under Section 31 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act. There have been no such cases. But, on the other hand, my right hon. friend was correct in saying that a certain number of complaints of excessive rates, as distinct from preferential rates, have been forwarded by him to the Board, with a view to obtaining information. This information was supplied in every case by the Board of Trade, and, in some instances, after communication with the railway companies. The Board have not been asked to take any further action.

  Trade Disputes—Board of Trade Intervention.
  MR. TENNANT: On behalf of the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state in how many trade disputes, and in what instances the Board of Trade has appointed a conciliator or an arbitrator under the Act of 1896.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Under the Conciliation Act, 1896, the Board of Trade have appointed arbitrators in sixty-six cases, and conciliators in fifteen cases. Particulars of the cases are given in the Reports by the Board of Trade of their proceedings under the Act, and in the Labour Gazette.

  Settle Limestone Quarry Lock Out.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Settle Limestone Quarry Company, Limited, have locked out their workmen, and refuse to re-engage them unless they sign an agreement to give up membership in a trade union; and whether he will state what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am aware of the dispute at the quarries of the Craven Lime Company at Settle. Information with regard to the dispute has been furnished by both sides, and I am now expecting certain further particulars.

  Wantage Motor Car Fatality.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board if any inquiry has been held in reference to the recent motor car accident at Eton; and if any steps will be taken to prevent a repetition of the same.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,: I presume the hon. Member alludes to an accident near Wantage on Saturday week when a collision occurred between a motor cycle ridden by a boy and a motor car. The boy, I deeply regret to learn, died as a result of the accident. I understand that at the inquest the jury returned a verdict of "accidental death," and exonerated from blame the driver of the motor car, which was stated to be going at not more than four miles an hour at the time of the occurrence. I am not aware that any inquiry other than that by the Coroner has been held in this case. The matter does not seem to me to call for any action on my part.

  Treatment of Casual Paupers.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the result obtained at the Manchester and Salford Mission Casual Ward and Labour Yard by allowing casuals to work in the afternoon in the

  469
  yard and earn supper, bed, and breakfast, and to be discharged early next morning, so as to be in time to apply for work outside, which is given only early in the morning; and, if so, whether he will make inquiries and see if the same system can be introduced into some of the Onion workhouses, seeing that men refuse to enter Government casual wards because they would be detained next morning at the hours when work may be had.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The answer to the first part of the Question i3 in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the Local Government Board have always impressed upon Boards of Guardians the importance of allowing casual paupers to be discharged at an early hour in the morning, and an order issued by them in 1892 provides that a casual pauper, who has been detained for more than one night, and has represented, that he is desirous of seeking work, shall be allowed to discharge himself at 5.30 a.m. in summer, and 6.30 a.m. in winter, provided that to the best of his ability he has performed the prescribed task of work. I may explain that, in ordinary circumstances, a casual pauper cannot take his discharge before the morning of the second day after his admission. In exceptional cases the Guardians can relax this restriction; and it is quite competent for them in such cases to permit the discharge to take place at an early hour in the morning.

  County Medical Officers.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will state what County Councils in England and Wales have appointed medical officers; and will he specify those cases in which such medical officer gives his whole time to the duties of the office.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Twenty-six County Councils have appointed a medical officer of health. In all of these cases the officer gives his whole time to the duties of his office. I shall be happy to furnish the hon. Member with a list of these cases.

  Regulation of Motor Car Traffic.
  GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that an omnibus driver was summoned and convicted, and sentenced on the 17th instant to a month's imprisonment with hard labour, for driving at a speed of ten miles an hour in the streets; and whether he will instruct the police to take similar proceedings against the drivers of motor cars who may drive vehicles at the same speed.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE HOME OFFICE (Mr. COCHRANE,: The driver referred to in the Question was convicted under the enactment in the London Hackney Carriage Act of 1843, which renders the driver of a stage carriage liable to punishment for "wanton or furious driving." There is a similar enactment in the Light Locomotives Order 1896, with regard to motor cars; and the police have instructions to take action against any motor cars, as against other vehicles, which may be driven to the common danger, whether the speed be greater or less than ten miles an hour.
  GENERAL LAURIE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, as a matter of fact, the police carry out their instructions with reference to motor cars?
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister if he will set a good example in this matter?
  No reply was given.

  Weymouth Licensing Sessions.
  SIR BARRINGTON SIMEON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Mayor and justices of Weymouth, at the adjourned licensing sessions on the 10th March last, imposed as a condition of renewal of a licence that women or children should not be allowed to go to a public house where there is a slate club for the purpose of making payments; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter.
  MR. COCHRANE: Enquiries have been made in this matter and it appears that the licensing justices, having ascertained that in some cases young female servants and other women had to go at night to public houses to pay their subscriptions to slate clubs held there in, requested the Mayor to intimate to the licence-holders present at the licensing meeting that this practice was undesirable and might in certain circumstances lead to the licences being cancelled. The newspaper report of the announcement made by the Mayor goes beyond this intimation, but the Secretary of State has no power to interfere in the matter.

  Carrying Agents and the London County Council Vehicular By-Law.
  MR. CAUSTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the proposed by-law for the good rule and government of the County of London, issued by the London County Council and a waiting his sanction, in relation to vehicles; and, having regard to the fact that the owners of vehicles have declared that they are unable to define to what class of vehicles the by-law will apply and how it should be carried out, can he give this information; and, if not, will he receive a deputation from those interested.
  MR. COCHRANE: Representations have been received from some of the railway companies and from the leading carrying agents objecting to the proposed by-law, and they are being referred to the London County Council for their consideration. It is being pointed out to the Council that it is essential that any by-law of this nature should leave no room for doubt as to the vehicles to which it would apply, and that its requirements should be practicable. Full time will be given for the consideration of these and all other points connected with the by-law before it is allowed to come into force. The railway companies have suggested a conference on the subject between the parties interested, and this seems to be a good suggestion; but at present, at all events, there appears to be no need for a deputation to the Home Department.

  Schemes under the Education Act.
  MR. LLOYD WHARTON: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether it is a fact that town and county councils, by postponing the taking up of their duties under the Education Act, 1902, are forfeiting considerable sums of money which are now lying at their disposal in the Exchequer; and, if so, whether he will state the amount thus lost to the County of Durham by the proposal of the County Council to defer the operation of the Act until April, 1904.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION SIR WILLIAM ANSON,: In reply to my right hon. friend I have to say that the matter stands as he has stated; and that in the case of the County of Durham, the County Council, had they adopted the Act on the day named therein, would have been entitled to draw the sum of some £3,800 a month. Of this sum, some £1,500 per month is now going to the voluntary schools in the County and to a few of the School Boards under the Acts of 1897. Consequently the county ratepayers are suffering a nett loss of nearly £2,300 a month from the Exchequer for every month that the operation of Part III. of the Act is delayed.

  Greenock School Board Election.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Donegal, I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether he is aware that at the School Board election in Greenock, on 2nd April, a duly authorised personation agent was refused admission to the Fourth Ward polling place in Shaw Street Public School by a policeman, who acted on the instructions of the Chief Constable; and whether, seeing that the refusal to admit was persisted in till the Returning Officer was found, he will state what steps he proposes to take in reference to this action of the Chief Constable.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,: The hon. Member's information is not quite accurate. The gentleman in question

  473
  having recorded his vote and left the polling station requested to be readmitted. The constables on duty did not know him to be an authorised agent, and he did not show the card which every such agent receives from the Returning Officer, and accordingly he was refused admission. He returned shortly after and produced the ticket and was thereupon admitted. Had he produced the ticket in the first instance there would have been no difficulty in his obtaining admission. In the circumstances I see no reason for taking any steps in the matter.

  Irish Land Bill.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Donegal, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the frequent references to sections of other statutes which are incorporated in the Irish Land Bill, whose provisions must be construed and interpreted in connection with the portions of other statutes which are thus by way of reference incorporated in the Bill, the various sections to which reference is thus made will be printed and circulated in a Parliamentary Paper for the convenience of Members, and with a view of rendering the provisions and purport of the Bill more intelligible, and of facilitating the study of the measure, and of lessening the danger of future judicial interpretations of its provisions not contemplated by the Legislature.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,: Yes sir; this will be done.

  Irish Civil Expenditure.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Donegal, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the intention of the Government to cut off £250,000 a year from the present Treasury expenditure upon the civil establishment of Ireland, provision will be made that the saving so effected shall, in accordance with the precedent in the provisions of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland)
  474
  Act of 1897, when coming from money payable out of the Consolidated Fund continue to be paid out of that fund, and when coming from money provided by Parliament through the several Estimates shall continue to be paid out of money so provided, and shall in either case be carried by the Treasury to a separate account, to be applied to such Irish purposes as Parliament may from time to time direct.
  MR. ATKINSON: This matter was fully explained by my right hon. friend when introducing the Land Bill on the 25th March. He then stated that the charge proposed to be placed in any one year upon the Estimates in respect to the Land Purchase Aid Fund would not exceed £390,000, and that a portion of this charge would be recouped by economies in civil expenditure amounting to the sum mentioned in the Question. The answer is, therefore, in the negative.

  Irish Constabulary at Railway Stations.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consider the desirability of discontinuing the daily attendance of police constables at the various Irish railway stations.
  MR. ATKINSON: The regulations issued to the police prohibit their attendance at railway stations unless specially ordered to be present by reason of the importance of the station, or some emergency necessitating their attendance.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: What duties do they perform at the stations?
  MR. ATKINSON: They prevent breaches of the peace, and watch for criminals.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: And look after political offenders.

  Magherafelt Disturbances.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that a detachment of the Royal Irish Constabulary stationed at Magherafelt on the 13th instant made,

  475
  in the absence of their officer, a baton charge on a number of bandsmen; and whether, in view of the personal injury inflicted, he will order a sworn inquiry to be made.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, may I ask whether the police were not forced to draw their swords in self protection, that one policeman was actually shot with a revolver, and that the whole row was caused by an Orange mob.
  Mr. ATKINSON: Proceedings have been instituted by the Crown against a number of persons for participating in the disturbances on this occasion. The action of the police will no doubt be fully investigated by the magistrates on the hearing of these cases; but in any case the question whether further investigation in the direction suggested is called for must await the result of the pending proceedings. As regards the supplemental question it would be most improper to answer such an inquiry whilst legal proceedings are pending.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he was not asking the right hon. Gentleman for an expression of opinion but was only putting to him a question of fact—namely, whether the police were not forced to draw their swords in self-defence.
  MR. SPEAKER: That question has been already dealt with by the answer.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: No, sir!
  MR. GORDONasked whether, in view of the fact that only one summons had been issued, he would give directions for the furnishing of the names of all the policemen who charged the public, with a view to further proceedings being taken.
  MR. ATKINSON: To do that would be to give an opinion on the legal proceedings now pending. When they have terminated the hon. Member may put another Question on the subject.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: As a matter of simple fact, was not a revolver fired on the police on this occasion?
  MR. ATKINSON: That is one of the matters in controversy.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Is it in controversy that a policeman was actually shot?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The right hon. Member has been fully answered and Members must not argue it.

  Education Capitation Grant in Ireland.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that national teachers whose annual examination happened to be in January, February, or March, 1901, were only paid a capitation grant of 4s. per head on the average attendance for the year ending 31st December, 1900, whereas the capitation grants since the passing of the Act amounted to 5s. per head on other years; and, if so, will the balance be paid to these teachers.
  MR. ATKINSON: I am informed by the Commissioners that all teachers examined on the dates mentioned were paid a capitation rate of 5s. per head on the average attendance for the year 1900.

  Education Result Fees in Ireland.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why the equivalent for result fees for the financial year 1900 and 1901 paid to teachers was in some cases less than the average for the last few years; and whether he will take steps to secure that the balance will be paid.
  MR. ATKINSON: The equivalent grant in lieu of results fees for the year mentioned was based on actual earnings from the latter source during the three preceding years. In no case, I am assured, was the grant less than the teacher's average earnings thus ascertained.

  Kiladysert Police Inspector and the Press.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord

  477
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the petty sessions court in Kiladysert, Mr. Clancy, a reporter, was removed from court by orders of District Inspector Patrick; and, if so, will he state for what reason and under what authority the police exercised this power.
  MR. ATKINSON: The reporter was not removed from the court. But, after the business of petty sessions had concluded and the general public had left the court, the agent and some of the tenants of an adjoining estate remained in order to perfect before one of the justices some statutory declarations verifying their purchase agreements. This was entirely a private matter, and the district inspector requested the reporter to leave. It would have been more prudent for the officer to have allowed the justice present to require the reporter to leave, but he acted from the best motives and, at most, was guilty of an error of judgment.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsuggested that the police should be instructed not to act thus in the future without directions from the magistrates.

  Galway Harbour.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what action has been taken with respect to the application by the Galway Harbour Commissioners for the loan of a dredger for the purpose of effecting improvements in the harbour.
  MR. ATKINSON: The Harbour Commissioners were negotiating some months ago for the hire of a dredger from a Scotch Harbour Authority, but with what result I cannot say. The Board of Public Works have, at present, no dredger which could be placed at the disposal of the Commissioners on loan or hire. The question, however, of providing a dredger in connection with the Marine Works Act is now under consideration. If such an arrangement be found practicable the dredger could be utilised by Harbour Authorities in Ireland on terms that might hereafter be settled.

  Dublin Motor Car Fatality.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if he will inform the House upon what grounds the proceedings against the Marquess of Down shire, for so driving his motor car as to cause the death of a woman, were withdrawn in the Dublin Police Court.
  MR. ATKINSON: The charge was withdrawn because there was not, either in the evidence given before the Coroner's Jury, by whom the accused was completely exonerated from blame, or in that in the possession of the Crown, any proof that the accused had been guilty of any negligence whatever. The solicitor who appeared for the next of kin stated in court that he was convinced the homicide was accidental, and the Police Magistrate approved of the course which was taken.

  Protection of Seamen at Limerick.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the desirability of appointing a Board of Trade official at Limerick to look after and protect seamen arriving at and being paid off at that port.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There are already two officers at Limerick who hold appointments under the Board of Trade as superintendent and deputy-superintendent respectively and whose duty it is to attend to the interests of seamen who are paid off there. As only nine vessels discharged their crews at Limerick last year it does not appear to be necessary to appoint an additional officer.

  Belfast Sorting Clerks' Grievances.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will explain the cause of the delay in granting increases of wages to two sorting clerks and telegraphists at Belfast from 12s. to 18s. per week, due in September and October last, respectively.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,: I am informed that the delay was due to inadvertence. The increases of

  479
  wages due in the months mentioned were sanctioned on the 21st instant and all arrears have now been paid. In any case the people aggrieved should memorialise their superior officer, and if they do not get redress they should then memorialise me. There is no need for them to trouble hon. Members.
  MR. SLOAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local postmaster has been communicated with and has ignored the question for six months?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If so, that is all the more reason why the members of the staff should memorialise me.

  Rock Angus Lighthouse.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Irish Lights Commissioners intend taking any steps to repair the damage caused by recent storms to the lighthouse on Rock Angus; and whether they have further considered the necessity for having a light placed in the lighthouse.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Irish Lights Commissioners inform the Board that the expediency of placing a light on this beacon has not been further considered since I replied to a Question by the hon. Member on the 4th December last,† but the statutory sanction of the Board to the acceptance of a tender for the repair of the beacon has been given by the Department.

  Cost of Royal Commissions and Select Committees.
  MR. MALCOLM: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will grant a Return showing the annual cost to the country of Royal Commissions and Select Committees respectively appointed since the year 1892.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I am having inquiries made with a view to seeing how far it is possible to meet the desire
  †See (4) Debates, cxv., 1331.
  480
  of the hon. Member, but he will understand that the investigation will entail researches which must occupy no inconsiderable time.

  Baghdad—Constantinople Railway Scheme.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any reports have been received from the Indian Government in reference to the projected Baghdad Constantinople Railway; and, if so, whether he will lay them upon the Table.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The answer is in the negative.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes to make further progress with the financial business, and what Supply will be taken on Thursday. May I add that there is a feeling—not I think an unreasonable one—that it would be very desirable to put down the Foreign Office Vote for that day, to elicit some explanation of the position of affairs in Somaliland. When that point has been discussed the Vote can be withdrawn and renewed at a later period of the session.
SIR CHARLES DILKEasked whether the Foreign Office had not handed over temporarily the control of the war operations in Somaliland to the War Office.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The desire of the House to have some discussion on events in Somaliland is a very natural and proper one. I was only informed of it when I came down to the House to-day and I have not yet had time to decide which Vote will give the House the amplest opportunity for such a discussion. There is in the Foreign Office Vote a sum for the civil administration of Somaliland, and, I believe, also a sum for the ordinary military operations, but it is true that the conduct of the actual military operations, and the expenditure in connection with them, is in charge of the War Office, and not the Foreign Office. I will endeavour to put down a Vote in the form most convenient to the House, and perhaps the Post Office Vote may be put down as the second Vote. With regard

481
to financial business, I hope there will be no difficulty in taking the Second Reading of the Irish Land Bill on Monday next, and the Budget proposals can be continued afterwards. If there is any difficulty in proceeding with the Land Bill on Monday, I shall propose to take the Budget proposals on that day.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked on what date it was proposed to take the Resolutions relating to the Sugar Convention.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must not be taken to assent to the proposition implied in this Question that any Resolution will be required; but, in any case, we must get the Second Reading of the Irish Land Bill before that matter is taken up, and also the Resolution connected with the Transvaal loan.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES.)
Mr. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures—Sir Frederick Dixon-Hartland; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland.
Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  SHIPOWNERS' NEGLIGENCE (REMEDIES) BILL.
  "To enlarge the Remedies of Persons injured by the Negligence of Shipowners," presented by Mr. Harry Samuel; supported by Mr. Brynmor Jones, Mr. Ernest Flower, Mr. Sydney Buxton, Major Evans-Gordon, and Mr. Bell; to be read a second time upon Friday, 15th of May, and to be printed. [Bill 166.]

  VAGRANT CHILDREN BILL.
  "To provide for the better protection of Vagrant Children," presented by Sir John Gorst; supported by Sir William Hart Dyke, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Mr. Ernest
  482
  Flower, and Mr. Lloyd-George; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 167.]

  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  The Select Committee on National Expenditure was nominated of,—Mr. Churchill, Mr. Dillon, Sir John Dorington. Mr. Arthur Elliot, Sir James Fergusson, Sir Walter Foster, Mr. Bonar Law, Mr. Hugh Law, Mr. Lough, Sir Lewis Mover, Sir Robert Mowbray, Mr. W. F. D. Smith, Mr. Trevelyan, Sir Edgar Vincent, and Mr. Eugene Wason.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.)

  BETHESDA (INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE).
  MR. ASQUITH: In submitting to the House the Motion which stands in my name—a Motion which asks the House to declare that it is the duty of the Executive to put into operation the law of the land—I think it is desirable at the outset to clear away some misconceptions which appear to have fastened upon it. I need not, of course, deal seriously with the suggestion that any general issue is raised by this Motion as between what is called Socialism and Individualism, or as between trade unionism and unorganised labour, or even as between labour and capital. I believe the course of the debate will show that there are not a few Members of this House, themselves large employers of labour, men who cannot be suspected of any hostility either to the principles or the methods of our existing industrial system, who feel just as strongly as the most advanced Socialist in the country, and feel as strongly in the interest of capital as in the interest of labour, that the prolongation of this irritating and wasteful struggle at Bethesda is a matter not merely of local, but of national concern. Nor, Sir, again, is the main or primary object of my Motion to raise a discussion upon the merits or the demerits of the two conflicting parties at all the various

  483
  stages of their protracted controversy. I will say frankly for myself that I have never known an industrial dispute in which all the reason was on one side and all the unreason on the other; and this particular case, although I have a strong opinion as to where the balance lies, is no exception to the rule. I shall endeavour, as far as I can, to present the matter to the House, not as the advocate of either party, but simply and exclusively from the point of view of public and general interest. I am the more disposed to avoid any topic of unnecessary irritation because, while I am asking the House, as I think for sufficient reasons, to condemn the inaction of His Majesty's Government, I still maintain the hope that the result of this debate may be, not to retard, but to facilitate a settlement, which, whatever may be our view as to the merits of the parties or as to the attitude of the Government, we must all, without distinction of party, ardently desire. One further preliminary observation I have to make. It is this. This motion is not a demand for a change in the existing law. It is a complaint that the law has been allowed, through timidity or supineness, to become a dead letter. Until the Government have used or exhausted the powers which the law gives them, there is no question of any amendment of the law. But in order to avoid any possible misapprehension, I should like to say this, as far as I am concerned, that I am, as I have always been, strongly opposed to any attempt to establish in this country a system of compulsory arbitration in industrial disputes. I watch, as I suppose we all do, with much interest the experiments being made by our fellow-subjects at the Antipodes, in New Zealand and New South Wales, in that direction. I think it is too early yet to pronounce any final judgment as to the success or failure of that legislation in those countries. But here the circumstances are entirely different, and it is my own personal opinion that in our complex and ramified industrial system, carried on, as it is, under infinitely varying conditions of both district and of trade, inter-dependent in almost all its parts, any statute to compel reference of disputes to a judicial or expert tribunal would be accepted neither by masters nor by men.
  484
  It would, in my judgment, be an instrument, not of peace, but of discord and confusion. The questions I wish to submit to the House are simpler and of a much more practical character. They are two in number. The first is, are the circumstances of this particular dispute so grave and so exceptional as to warrant, and not only to warrant but to demand, the exercise of any power of conciliation which the State may possess? and the second question is, are there powers which the Government might and ought to exercise which they have left and are leaving unused? If both these questions are answered in the affirmative my Motion is justified.
  Now as regards the first question. I am not going for the moment into the particular issues of the controversy between Lord Penrhyn and his men, because I wish, if I can, first of all, very briefly, to try to get the House to realise the actual gravity of the situation from the public point of view. The great slate quarry at Bethesda is in many respects a unique undertaking. Through the co-operation of capital and labour during now several generations it has not only become a source of wealth to the owner, but it has provided means for the growth of what was a short time ago a prosperous and well-ordered community, full of religious and educational activities, and with some striking features of its own which gave it what I may perhaps call a social and corporate individuality of its own. As in the case of the employer, so in the case of the work people; father was succeeded by son, and son succeeded by grandson. The mountain adjoining the quarry was covered with houses, built to a large extent by the people themselves, which through long association they had come to look upon as their permanent, I might almost say their hereditary, homes. In every direction you saw the evidence, not so much as we see in many industries of a migratory crowd, which shifts its scene of occupation according to the higgling of the market, but of a permanent, organised community, rooted in the soil, attached to its work and to the surroundings of that work by the strongest possible ties; and isolated though it was from the rest of the world, by the very fact of that isolation more

  485
  strongly bound together as a people among themselves. I do not think that is an over-coloured picture. Now, what is the situation to-day? I wish purposely to avoid the use of any embittering language; but what is the actual state of things? When the present dispute began in the autumn of 1900, nearly three years ago, some 2,800 men living in the community which I have described were at work in the quarry. On the 22nd of November, 1900, work was suspended and the quarry was closed. On the 11th June. 1901, that is to say some seven months later, the quarry was re-opened and, as far as I can make out, about 500 men, including perhaps—the numbers are not very clear—but including perhaps about 400 of those who had been previously employed there, went in. There have been further additions from time to time to the men at work in the re-opened quarry. As to the precise figures there is a good deal of conflict of testimony, and I do not profess to determine the number, but this at any rate is certain: that of the 2,800 men who were there three years ago only a small fraction have accepted the employer's terms, and the great bulk of them are either finding temporary employment in other parts of Wales,—not having severed, because they do not wish to sever till they are compelled to do so, the last tie which binds them to their old home—or are dependent on relief from the trades union or public charity. The production of the great quarry itself, enormously undermanned as it must be now, has necessarily dwindled. Poverty and privation are to be met with in every quarter of Bethesda. The children are ill-fed, the homes of which I have spoken are broken up, or are kept together with great difficulty and at an enormous sacrifice. The common life of the community in all its aspects and activities is arrested and disorganised. Worst of all, a spirit of bitterness and intolerance has been engendered between the men who are at work and the men who have ceased to work which divides old friends, splits up families, poisons the atmosphere of the place, and has led from time to time to acts of violence which cannot be too strongly condemned or too sternly
  486
  punished; and which, as I believe, are condemned by the general opinion of the great mass of the men and of their responsible leaders. Violence and intimidation, direct or indirect, you can and you must repress, but is it not also your duty to do everything that you lawfully can to assuage, and if possible to extinguish, the sense of resentment and bitterness which is the inevitable outcome of the state of things such as I have described in its slow development?
  Sir, I think I have said enough to show that this is not a mere ordinary and transient quarrel, one of those temporary failures of adjustment, as economists say, between supply and demand which can be trusted to right themselves. In the words of the Motion which I am submitting to the House there are "grave social and public interests involved." I am glad to say that for that proposition I can cite a very much higher authority—the authority of the very Department of the Government whose conduct in this matter I am about to impugn. In the autumn of the year 1896 there was a previous suspension of work at this quarry, and the men who went out on that occasion solicited then, as they have solicited now, the good offices of the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade, better inspired then, I think, than it is now, assented to that solicitation, and they submitted to Lord Penrhyn, the employer, a proposal that there should be a meeting between himself and representatives of the men in the presence, if not under the chairmanship, of some representative of the Board of Trade. Lord Penrhyn refused that offer and in a letter which I think is worth quoting, dated 9th December, 1896, said the reason for his refusal was:—
  "I must with all due respect beg to decline to comply with such a suggestion, as my acceptance of it would establish a precedent for outside interference with the management of my private affairs."
  [MINISTERIAL Cheers.] That was Lord Penrhyn's view. Was it the view of the Board of Trade? No. What was the reply of the Board of Trade? I may quote their letter of the 12th December in the same year. The Board of Trade replied thus:—
  "With regard to the question of the presence of a Board of Trade representative at the

  487
  proposed conference between yourself and the men, I am to state that there is no desire to press the matter against your wishes, but lam to point out that in view of the provisions of the Conciliation Act the Board cannot admit that the settlement of a prolonged dispute affecting some thousands of men and their families can be rightly regarded as a matter of private interest only."
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I beg pardon for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but would he read the letter in which Lord Penrhyn afterwards absolutely repudiated that interpretation?
  MR. ASQUITH: The hon. Gentleman will allow me to pursue my argument; he will find that I shall do no injustice to Lord Penrhyn at any stage of it. Lord Penrhyn, it is quite true though it is not in the least to the point, said he had been misinterpreted, and that when he deprecated interference with his private affairs he did not mean that they were private affairs at all. That is not the point. The point is whether the sentiment which was cheered a few moments ago by some hon. Gentlemen opposite, or whether the view of the Board of Trade, then presided over by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, that a dispute of this kind was or was not a matter of private concern was correct. And let me point out that when the right hon. Gentleman very creditably, as I think, directed that letter to be written the struggle had only lasted two months. It was in its very early stage. The condition of social dislocation and domestic privation which I have described had not arisen, or had hardly arisen at all; but at the very beginning, acting, I think, on a perfectly just conception of the duties of his Department and of the responsibility entrusted to him by Act of Parliament, the right hon. Gentleman said this was far too important and grave a thing to be treated as a mere matter of private concern, and that the Board of Trade were entitled to interfere.
  That brings me to my second question. Are there powers in the hands of the Government, and of this particular Department, which they could exercise and which they ought to exercise in relation to a matter of this kind? I confess I am a little surprised, having
  488
  been always myself and still being strongly adverse to any unnecessary intervention by the State in industrial affairs, to find myself described as a Socialist and revolutionary. Why? Because I ask the Government of the day to put in execution an Act of Parliament of which they are the authors, and for which, on many platforms, they have claimed the credit. I am referring, of course, to the Conciliation Act of 1896. What are the powers given by that Act? They fall into three categories dealing with the event of either the existence or the apprehension of industrial disputes between employers and employed. In the first place, the Board of Trade on their own initiative, without any request from anybody at all, in such an event may make an inquiry and may endeavour to bring about a meeting of the parties concerned. In the second place, at the request of either party to the dispute—not of both, but at the request of either party to the dispute—they may appoint a conciliator, whose business it is to inquire into all the circumstances and to endeavour to bring about a settlement; and, in the third place, on the application of both parties, and, of course, only of both parties, they may appoint an arbitrator. Now, is it not ridiculous to contend that under the provisions of an Act of Parliament like that the Board of Trade may not act, is almost bound to hold its hand, unless it gets some kind of intimation from both parties. The Act becomes a perfect dead letter if it could not do so, as was pointed out over and over again, in the debates on that Act It had been before Parliament for many years. We promoted a similar Bill when we were in office in 94, and it was pointed out over and over again in the protracted discussions which went on year after year, that in that proposed legislation there were two perfectly distinct propositions: arbitration at the instance and with the consent of both parties, and conciliation either at the initiative of the Board of Trade alone or on the application of either one or other of the parties to the dispute. Now, I have been asked what proposition by way of limitation I am prepared to lay down in relation to the carrying out of that Act. It is

  489
  said—"Are you prepared to require the Board of Trade to interfere as conciliator, or even as investigator, in every trumpery and trivial dispute that arises between master and men?" Certainly not. There must be a dignus vindice nodus; there must be a case where the differences are not trivial, and not reasonably certain of prompt adjustment between the parties. But this proposition I lay down, and I do not shrink from its application in any case I can conceive of—that the true interpretation of the Act is that where the conflict covers a substantially wide area; where there seems to be little or no probability of an early adjustment of the dispute by negotiations between the parties; and particularly where more than mere private interests are involved and the struggle threatens social order and the well-being of a whole community; the Board of Trade has not only the power, but the duty to use the power, which the law has placed in its hands.
  Let me here point out by way of anticipation of criticism or rejoinder that, in my judgment at all events, it is not a fit or apt criterion of whether or not the occasion for intervention has arisen that there is a certainty, or a strong probability, of success. You never can tell in advance in cases of this kind, whether you are likely to succeed or not. I speak with some little experience in this matter. In the years when we were in office, in 1893 and 1894, there was no Conciliation Act in existence. The Board of Trade, or any other department of the Government, had no locus standi in any industrial dispute; but at least on two occasions action was taken. The first was the great coal strike, which was settled through the intervention of my noble friend Lord Rosebery; and in the second case, the much smaller dispute of the cab strike in the Metropolis, I was able to contribute to its settlement. In both instances persons were brought together in the same room, with the conciliator sitting between them. In the, relatively speaking, small dispute of the cab strike, with which I was concerned, I can assure the House that when those persons came together in the room, and sat on opposite sides of the table, I was filled with despair, for rarely, if ever, did
  490
  I see evidence of estrangement so complete, and a gap so unbridgeable between the maximum the one side was prepared to concede and the minimum of what the other side demanded. Yet what was the result? After a good deal of knocking of heads together—to use a popular expression—of palavering, of negotiation, and the exercise of such modest arts of conciliation and compromise as any person entrusted with such a commission, if he does not possess them before, will soon acquire, the dispute, which had raged furiously and seemed hopeless of appeasement, was settled, and we came to an arrangement which has now worked for nine years without a single hitch. But that is not our own experience alone. We have had a still more remarkable illustration in the United States. The President of the United States has absolutely no constitutional or legal right of any kind to intervene in labour disputes. But he brought together in the course of last year the parties to one of the most fierce and apparently implacable industrial conflicts that have ever raged in the United States, a modus vivendi was arrived at, and there is now the greatest possible prospect of ultimate peace. I mention these illustrations, drawn from actual experience, to show that the mere fact that it does not look likely that you will obtain the desired result ought not to deter you from making the attempt. Nor do I think that the fact that mediation by other bodies or private persons has been refused, or has proved ineffective, in the least degree absolves the Board of Trade from taking action itself. There are, obviously, the greatest possible differences between any kind of mediation by any private person, however well intentioned, able, tactful, or in the confidence of the parties, and the mediation of the Board of Trade. In the first place the Board of Trade goes there clothed with a statutory mandate—a mandate not, of course, from the parties, but a mandate given by Parliament with, as I humbly conceive, the intention that in a fit case it should be used. The Board of Trade goes there with a statutory authority which no private negotiator or conciliator could possibly possess. I observe that Lord Penrhyn rejected the offer of arbitration from the

  491
  County Council of Carnarvon on the ground that he would not allow any outside interference. I do not say whether he was wise or unwise, but he was perfectly entitled to take up that position towards the County Council of Carnarvon. But he is not entitled to take up that position as regards the Board of Trade. The President of the Board of Trade shakes his head. Surely Parliament has said to the Board of Trade, "In a case of this kind we authorise you to do this thing." And how can any lawabiding citizen say, "This is an unwarrantable interference with my private affairs?"
  There is another point. The Board of Trade is free from the suspicion of any kind of partiality. It is not bound, if it does not think fit, to tender advice; but if, after a full investigation of the local circumstances, it has come to the conclusion that there ought to be "give" here and "take" there, I venture to say that it offers that advice with an authority to which no private negotiator can possibly pretend. In these circumstances the refusal of either side of the good offices of the Board of Trade involves a much more serious responsibility than the refusal of the good offices of any mere outsider. Industrial peace is not merely a private but a public necessity; and, where the interests of a large number of persons are involved, if either side in the dispute—I do not care which side it is—acts unreasonably or perversely in refusing the good offices which Parliament has authorised a public Department to offer, it risks, in a far greater degree and in a totally different sense than would be the case in private mediation, that moral support of public opinion which, in the long run, in these industrial struggles determines the side on which victory lies. So far as the men here are concerned there is, upon this point, no room for controversy. They have repeatedly asked for arbitration. They have suggested as arbitrators some of the most eminent statesmen on both sides of politics, including the Prime Minister and the Colonial Secretary. Lord Penrhyn has not seen his way to accept that proposal. He was perfectly entitled to reject it. But, finding that arbitration would not
  492
  be accepted by the other party in the dispute, the men invited the Board of Trade to use its powers of conciliation or inquiry conferred on it by this Act. They sent that invitation in December last, and the answer was the refusal of the Board of Trade on the ground that it could not lead to any useful result.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,: Hear, hear!
  MR. ASQUITH: The right hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear." I will not repeat what I said about the extraordinary difficulty, if not impossibility, of predicting what may happen in such cases. But I will refer again to the previous intervention of the Board of Trade, in 1896, at the instance of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is quite true that the intervention of the Board of Trade on that occasion was ineffective. That is to say, it did not bring about approximately and directly a settlement of the dispute. Yet I hold the opinion strongly that that intervention—partly by the public attention which it called to the case, partly by the debates in this House, and partly by the fact that, despite the absence of the representative of the Board of Trade, the representatives of the men and the employer did actually come together—was indirectly and largely responsible for the comparatively speedy settlement arrived at in August, 1896. That strike, or lock-out, lasted eleven months. The present strike has already lasted two years and a half. I quite agree with those who say that that instance of the intervention of the Board of Trade is not conclusive. I think, however, it is a hopeful indication of the possible value of similar action now. It seems strange that after very careful consideration of all the information I have been able to obtain I do not find it easy at this moment to say what is the real, as distinguished from the ostensible, issue between Lord Penrhyn and the men who were lately in his employment. There are a number of subsidiary matters—matters connected with the letting of contracts, the management of the sick club, and the evils of sweating—as to which there can be no doubt whatever what the issue is, and which, I believe, can be very

  493
  easily settled by negotiation. But what is the real issue in this matter? As far as I can ascertain it hangs upon or hovers around two main points. The first is the question of combination, and the second is the relation, when the quarries are re-opened, of the old workmen to the new.
  As to the question of combination, let me remind the House of how the present state of things has been arrived at. There was, between 1874 and 1885, a committee of the men established by agreement between them and the agent of their then employer, the late Lord Penrhyn. That committee, apparently, was the regular vehicle and medium of communication on all matters of general grievance between the body of the workmen and their employer. When the present Lord Penrhyn succeeded to the management of the property he abolished the committee in 1885, and the fact that that committee had in some way or other been revived, or at any rate re-clothed with some of its old functions, was, I think, one of the main causes which led to the strike or lock-out of 1896. If I remember right Lord Penrhyn dismissed several of the members of the committee at that time, and that was the reason why the men went out. There were two rival contentions in regard to that committee. The men's view was that the committee was merely as I have described it, a convenient medium for the sifting of grievances—with the result that numbers of petty trifling complaints the management were never troubled with at all. Lord Penrhyn's contention, on the other hand, was that the committee, whatever its ostensible objects and functions, was really a body which enabled the men to interfere with the management of the quarries. I do not want to go into that point, because I do not want, if I can help it, to revive buried animosities. That is the history of the difficulty. Those are the conventions which prevailed on one side and the other. What is the state of things now? I do not care what happened in 1874, 1885, or 1896. Over and over again the men have disclaimed their intention that any committee or organisation of any kind should have the right to interfere with the internal management of Lord Penrhyn's affairs. I do not consider in respect of this I can do better than to read the communication of the 27th
  494
  September last year, in which the chairman of the men, Mr. Henry Jones, in reply to Lord Penrhyn says—
  "All they desire is that the men shall have the right to represent their grievances by means of a freely appointed deputation; that they have no wish to interfere with the management of the quarry."
  On the other hand, Lord Penrhyn has over and over again said he does not dispute the men's right of combination. I do not know what Lord Penrhyn means by combination. The rights of combination are not exhausted when you have allowed the men to hold a debating society or a club. Combination, if it is to be what we generally understand by the term, must, to be effective, at least afford the means, by some form of corporate action or delegation, of submitting any grievance the men may have to their employer on behalf of the body of men employed. I see in this House, on both sides, not a few great employers of labour in this country, and I think I might put to any one of them this question: If he were employing 2,000 or 3,000 men working under the conditions under which these men were working, men to a large extent not speaking the language which he speaks, would he regard it as any interference with the natural rights and prerogatives of capital, or as inconsistent with the due conduct of his business, that these men should from time to time have the power, through a Committee, through some form of delegation or deputation, of expressing and communicating any grievance of their fellows to the employer or his representative? I go further. I do not believe it is possible in these days, under modern conditions, to carry on a business of this kind unless you have something more than the mere physical conjunction—unless you have the intelligent co operation of labour and capital; and I believe the wisest and most farsighted employers of labour are those who welcome in every possible way such cooperation on the part of their men. In this way friction is avoided, unnecessary disputes do not arise, and the business is carried on, on both sides, with good will. I am not here for the purpose of attacking Lord Penrhyn, but I cannot believe that when it is once realised that the claim of the men is confined to what I have stated, and, on the other hand,

  495
  that Lord Penrhyn, according to his own declaration, does not object to combination, it will not at the same time be realised that you have here a difference which with very little adjustment might be completely bridged over.
  The other point—I agree it is a very delicate one—is as regards the relations of the men who have gone out and the men who have remained in or come in. Now we must try to put ourselves in the position of both parties to the controversy, and in doing so I think we shall all agree that, on the one hand, the men feel it would be a base act on their part to desert the men who had borne the brunt of the fight and to purchase their return to work by sacrificing the fortunes of those who had been their standard-bearers. On the other hand, I sympathise equally with the position of Lord Penrhyn; I should feel it a base thing to desert men who had worked for me when the other men were out. That, of course, constitutes a delicate situation. But even there the difficulty is not insuperable. For I find that my friend Sir Edward Clarke, in the course of negotiations, to which I am about to refer, actually arrived at an agreement on this very point with the representatives of the men, and a very sensible agreement it appears to have been. It is found embodied in a letter dated March 23rd, and it is in effect in these terms:
  "Lord Penrhyn undertakes upon the conclusion of the strike to readmit to employment at the quarry the full number of men required for carrying on the work of the quarry to the extent to which it was worked in October, 1900, and in any future employment of labour undertakes to give a preference to those who were employ ed at the quarry in October, 1900, and further undertakes that no exception shall be made in respect of any men whatever by reason of their having taken part in labour disputes in the quarry at any time since 1885."
  A very sensible settlement on the part of Lord Penrhyn if he had assented to it. Then, on the other hand, the men readmitted—
  "Undertake to work peaceably with those now in employment at the quarry. In the event of any question arising at any time within three months from the commencement of work in relation to this clause, the same shall be submitted to the final arbitration of Sir Edward Clarke, K.C."
  496
  A modus vivendi, therefore, was perfectly attainable, and in fact had been practically attained.
  Since we last had a debate in this House on this subject there has been a further development. Lord Penrhyn brought on an action for libel, which was tried be ore the Lord Chief Justice of England and a special jury of the City of London. In that action Lord Penrhyn recovered—if I may venture to express my personal opinion, properly recovered—substantial damages in respect of comments made upon him by the defendant passing beyond the limits of legitimate criticism. But a remarkable feature of that case was the expression of opinion as to the need for and the possibility of conciliation. The Lord Chief Justice, presiding at the trial, more than once intimated to the Bar, not that the action ought to be settled, but that the dispute ought to be settled. The special jury of the City, who found damages in £500 in favour of Lord Penrhyn, took the most unusual course of appending to their verdict a rider that with a little conciliation on both sides the dispute might be settled. And Sir Edward Clarke, having used all his exceptional and almost unrivalled powers as an advocate in support of Lord Penrhyn's case at the trial—my learned friend Sir Edward Clarke, one of the ornaments of the English Bar, whose lamentable absence from this House is regretted quite as much by his political opponents as by his political friends—Sir Edward Clarke, Lord Penrhyn's counsel, was so impressed with the necessity and the possibility of conciliation that he himself spontaneously—very much, I think, to his honour—undertook the task of mediator and conciliator. Sir Edward Clarke throughout these negotiations appears to have been in communication with Lord Penrhyn, who was made acquainted from stage to stage of the progress of the negotiations. Being in communication with Lord Penrhyn, Sir Edward Clarke remained up to the last moment sanguine as to the result. That is shown from his own letter. In the course of these negotiations it was shown conclusively by the draft agreement ultimately arrived at, but unfortunately never assented to,

  497
  that there was an elastic margin of give and take between the two parties. But, unfortunately—I do not know the cause; that is left in darkness—just at the moment when, success seemed certain, Sir Edward Clarke expressed his regret that he had received a letter from Lord Penrhyn putting an end to any hope of being able to bring about a termination of the dispute. We do not know how that arose, but I venture to say that the matter cannot be left there. Here were these two parties engaged in this controversy for nearly three years, at great loss to one and almost infinite suffering to the other, brought through the agency of a third party within a measurable distance almost within actual sight of peace and reconciliation, and it would be a monstrous thing if matters having been brought so near solution should now be allowed to lapse into their old condition of bitterness and antagonism. Neither I nor any one else can guarantee or predict success if the Board of Trade undertake this mission. But we do know that every impartial authority that has had the question under consideration, and not directly interested in it—the County Council of Carnarvon, the Lord Chief Justice, the special jury, and Lord Penrhyn's counsel—has come to the conclusion that it is a matter which might be, could be, and ought to be adjusted. The only authority which sits silent, folding its hands apparently in a mood of dogged and invincible inertia, is the Department to which Parliament has entrusted both the power and the duty of peacemaker. Surely we have seen enough in these days of great departments spending their time in finding excuses to leave half done or not done at all what Parliament requires of them. All I am asking the House to affirm is that till the Board of Trade changes its attitude, till it exerts itself whole-heartedly and with all the means at its disposal to reconcile this conflict, the public conscience will not be cleared if one step is left un trodden on the road which may and ought to lead to peace.
  MR. WILLIAM JONESin seconding the Motion said whichever party is in the right or in the wrong on this prolonged and deplorable industrial dispute—and no doubt there
  498
  are faults on both sides—nobody can question the fact that the men have put themselves in the right in the face of the public, and of the law of the land, by offering to submit the whole matter to conciliation or arbitration. Efforts have been made, to help them by outside organisations and communities, but none at all have been made by the Government. The Standing Joint Committee of the Carnarvonshire County Council passed this resolution with regard to the attitude of the Government—
  "That the magnitude and long duration of this unfortunate quarrel, the widespread poverty and destitution caused in the district, and the serious industrial and commercial losses suffered by the country generally, have now reached so grave a point as to call for the intervention of His Majesty's Government, which so far as we can see is the only remaining Court to which appeal can be made."
  I will not go over the various attempts which have been made at conciliation, but two gentlemen deputed by the Carnarvon County Council—one a Conservative and a Churchman, the other a Liberal and a Nonconformist, one, I believe, a personal friend of Lord Penrhyn himself,—met the men to see if they could bring the two parties together. They affirmed that they did not want to interfere with the matter in dispute, but merely to act as conciliators, on behalf of the County Council, to bring the parties together. What was Lord Penrhyn's attitude? First of all he pleaded illness and instructed his manager to meet the deputation. Afterwards when writing to express his regret that he could not give an interview he said:
  "I am, however, far from wishing to interpose any obstacle in the way of your giving my late workmen the benefit of your advice."
  What was the proper reply of the deputation? They said:
  "We should not feel ourselves at liberty to give advice to your late workmen any more than we should undertake to advise your lordship. We are simply here in the nope that by ordinary intercourse and friendly discussion, an amicable settlement may be arrived at in the interests of public peace and of all parties concerned."
  Afterwards I asked the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to intervene by putting the provisions of the Conciliation Act in force, and the reply I got was that neither party in the dispute had applied

  499
  although, as I tried to show, there is a provision whereby an inquiry could be set to report on the question independently of the parties concerned. A few months afterwards the men were advised, and rightly advised, to apply to the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman then adopted a non possumus attitude, although there is a distinct provision enabling the Board to intervene if either of the parties apply for such intervention. But I will not follow on in that strain. I will deal with another aspect of the question. Lord Penrhyn himself has repeatedly expressed a desire—I hope an honest desire—to bring about industrial peace. He consented to meet four leaders of the men in an interview on condition that they should not talk about the restoration of the Quarry Committee. I am bound to say, however, that for eight or nine years the Quarry Committee worked well. The referee and arbitrator under the clause which brought about the Quarry Committee was Lord Penrhyn's own manager and estate agent, and I remember hearing the leader of the men, the late Mr. Robert Parry, almost on his deathbed, say that whenever they met the late Lord Penrhyn they always managed to arrive at amicable and peaceful settlements. In fact, the men, through their leader, over and over again asserted that the late Lord Penrhyn acted as a nobleman should with the representatives of the men through the Quarry Committee. However, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, the Quarry Committee has gone, and the men replied to Lord Penrhyn's letter in this way—that they had received his notification with satisfaction; that they were willing to omit any reference to the Quarry Committee and to confine themselves entirely to the question of representation. What could be fairer than that? But Lord Penrhyn said that that did not satisfy him, and he imposed a new condition, viz., that they should not discuss the question of representation in any form. He shifted from one point to the other, although the men waived objection after objection to meet him in a conciliatory spirit. In connection with this attitude I am reminded of a story told of a humorous theologian who once suggested a
  500
  prescription for keeping Lent. "Conceive," he said, "a fervent desire for bodily mortification, and mortify that desire." Lord Penrhyn seems to have conceived a fervent desire for a really good settlement of the dispute, and to have mortified that desire. The men have over and over again expressed their willingness to submit the matter to arbitration. I have attended many of their mass meetings, and at the very first one I put it to the men whether they would not, independently of any outside intervention or interference, through their leaders meet Lord Penrhyn personally, apart from the manager, and the men unanimously voted that they would. But what does the desire for arbitration on the part of the men amount to if Lord Penrhyn will not meet them? Lord Penrhyn says he will not tolerate outside interference between himself and the men. Lord Penrhyn has not done his duty and proved his sincerity in the matter. The men, if they refused, would lose the support of public opinion which has so generously been given them through the strike; but they have shown themselves anxious to determine the dispute and loyally to accept the decision of any impartial arbitrator.
  What is the point in dispute? The district has been singularly crimeless. I know it will be said that there have been assaults, violent acts, and cases of intimidation. But all those outrages and cases of intimidation were committed not at the instigation of the men's leaders, not by the masses of the men themselves, but by several wild and reckless youths, who have been asked to go back to the quarry and are working there to-day. I said that the Government had shown inaction in the whole matter. There is one exception. The Government did intervene on one occasion, and how? By sending the military down. Surely nobody will dare assert that sending the military came under the provisions of the Conciliation Act. What did the commanding officer say when I saw him at Bethesda? He wanted to know why he was there, and he begged me to remain there overnight, feeling sure that a few words in Welsh from me and the leading of the men in the singing of the National Anthem

  501
  would keep the whole district peaceful and tractable. That commanding officer had Welsh blood in him. The action of His Majesty's Government in sending the military was condemned not only by the County Council of Carnarvonshire, but by the Lord Lieutenant of Carnarvonshire and by Lord Penrhyn's son-in-law, and a Motion against the importation of the military was carried by an over whelming majority in the County Council. There are grave and complex social problems involved in this dispute. If we examine closely into this question we shall find that there is a land question, a housing question, a trade question—the whole social life of the people, in fact—mixed up with this dispute, and these factors are intensely emphasised by difference of race, language, religion, and politics. In one of the parishes in which these quarries are situated most of the houses belong to Lord Penrhyn, and in another parish most of the houses are on short leases granted by Lord Penrhyn and his father. Many of those leases have lapsed and Lord Penrhyn now owns the houses. Some of the leases had been extended to sixty years. Can anyone blame these quarry men for clinging to the houses which they and their fathers have built? These men have built their chapels and schools upon Lord Penrhyn's estate. Many of the houses have small gardens adjoining. Lord Penrhyn, however, believes in giving the men small gardens, not of good land but mountain land, and practically these men have spent their money and labour and their very life in the homesteads which they have created.
  There is a new feature I wish to call attention to. What will hon. Gentlemen opposite say to the fact that these quarrymen have built on Lord Penrhyn's property over twenty chapels, on leases. Lord Penrhyn refuses to give a freehold on which to build any Nonconformist chapels. There are eight or ten of them on thirty years leases and two or three on sixty years leases. These twenty chapels which the men have built have cost nearly £50,000, or an average of about £2,000 each. But that is not all. Lord Penrhyn has built two churches and one schoolroom, every one of them freehold. Not only does Lord Penrhyn give the Church of England the privilege of having the
  502
  land free but he builds the churches as well, while the chapels and the schools have been built by the toilers in his quarry. There is always a clause in the lease that no other but religious meetings shall be held in the chapels. The quarrymen have built their own houses and they cling to them through the storm and stress of this struggle, and they also cling tenaciously to the chapels and schools. When Church of England places of worship were erected, that was done by Lord Penrhyn himself, because the people did not want them. The Nonconformist places of worship cannot be used for any purpose except a religious one, because Lord Penrhyn made it one of the conditions of his lease. The result is that political meetings have occasionally to be held in disused quarries on the roadside. No wonder that men with such fortitude of soul feel a grievance in not getting what is given to their English fellow-workers. The men contend that the managers of the quarries have victimised the leaders, and they are now demanding the right to appear before their employer represented by their own freely elected delegates. The quarrymen have never asked to be represented by trades union officials outside the quarry. Their demand is a most moderate one. They merely ask for a freely elected spokesman of their own. They have been denied the right to discuss grievances in their own dinner hour, they are not treated as men, and are some times sworn at by the managers. Not only this, but the men are subjected to a system of espionage. In the recent; trial the jury expressed the opinion that by a little more conciliatory spirit on the part of Lord Penrhyn and his men, better relations might be restored at the Bethesda quarries. We now know the reason why Sir Edward Clarke's noble attempt to bring about a reconciliation has proved futile and vain. Lord Penrhyn has stated the reason in a letter to The Times, in the course of which he said—
  "I am convinced that the disturbances at the Penrhyn quarries are part of a deliberate plan and scheme of Socialistic aggression."
  The House will wonder on what authority he based that assertion.
  "I have it, "Lord Penrhyn wrote, "from the editor of a Radical organ in Mid Wales which has consistently supported the justice of my cause."

  503
  His lordship forgets that the Tory organ in the same neighbourhood, the most influential Conservative organ in Mid Wales, has just as consistently supported the men's cause. So it is a piece of rivalry between these two editors. And yet Lord Penrhyn treats this seriously. The editor of this small Radical organ says he got his information from Mr. Michael Davit, who made the statement in question in a political speech upon the land question. Mr. Davit, in The Times, gives a most emphatic denial to this statement and says the whole story is a figment of this gentleman's imagination. The remarkable thing is this—this very gentleman, in a leading article, says—
  "Mr. Michael Davitt's words were mild, his recommendations moderate, and his denunciations of Welsh landlords noble."
  At that meeting Mr. Michael Davitt and this editor both delivered speeches from the same platform. Mr. Davitt was given a respectful hearing but this editor was hooted from the platform for his extraordinary language. Everybody in Mid Wales knew what value to give to the utterances of the editor of this Radical organ, and I venture to affirm that Lord Penrhyn is the only public man in the Principality who is influenced, or can be influenced, by the opinion of this erratic and irresponsible journalist. We are given to understand that the men cannot be taken back altogether, that 600 of them will be debarred; and that there are some whom Lord Penrhyn will refuse to admit at all. The figures show that there is room in the quarry for all the men. One hundred have died during this conflict, about 200 have emigrated to Canada, 200 are permanently employed elsewhere, and 500 of the strikers have gone back. At the beginning of the lock-out 2,800 men were employed at the quarry. The number of strikers is 1,800, and they can easily go to the quarry, because the output is not sufficient to meet the demands of the slate market. I know that the manager has written very learnedly to The Times giving an account of the increased output, and I will deal with that in a moment. I am informed by a gentleman who understands the subject that Welsh slates are scarce and that prices have increased 7½per cent. During past months orders from England and else-
  504
  where were difficult to meet, on account of the reduction of the output, In fact the market is flooded with German, French, and American slates. The American slate quarry owners have for many years tried to effect a lodgement for their slates in this country, and they have now succeeded owing to this long dispute, and it will be a difficult thing to dislodge them. The House will therefore see that it is a dispute which affects the trade and commerce of the country as well.
  It has been said that the workmen in other Welsh quarries do not sympathise with the men in connection with the Penrhyn dispute. This is a gross misrepresentation. The men engaged in the quarries round about have sent me copies of resolutions they have passed which practically amount to this—they express the deepest sympathy with the Bethesda quarrymen in their struggle, their strong desire for a settlement of the dispute, and their earnest hope that the Government will adopt measures to prevent a recurrence. One word only to the contrary have I ever heard since the dispute commenced, and that was from a clergyman who said that the curse of trades unionism has fallen on the district and that the men should learn the duty of obeying their superiors. In the districts round about they have given contributions of £1,000 for the relief fund. Some will say that only a small portion of the quarrymen are unionists. What are the figures? Out of 10,000 quarrymen in North Wales, over 6,000 are unionists. All the trades unions and all the labour organisations throughout the country have given their active sympathy. The Government alone in a pitiful way has refused by its inaction and ineptitude to take part in the settlement of the dispute. I must say that certain individual Gentlemen on the Front Bench have been kind and conciliatory to me in dealing with this question, but as a collective political organism they have been thoroughly parlaysed in the case of this dispute. What has President Roosevelt done in America in connection with the anthracite coal miners? There was in connection with their dispute a record of twenty-one murders, a long list of brutal assaults, and of houses dynamited.

  505
  There was no end of outrage and violence. Did President Roosevelt send more soldiers, bayonets, and guns there? No; he appointed a Commission to inquire, so that the disastrous industrial war might be brought to an end. Amity, peace, and prosperity now reign there. I will not dwell on the circumstances of the distress at Bethesda. They are too well known and harrowing. The people are being relieved by contributions from all parts of the United Kingdom, the Colonies, and the United States, but these contributions, I am sorry to say, have not the supreme virtue of healing the trouble. Infinitely more than any party triumph in this dispute would be a successful effort to replant these men in their homes and in their quarry, and to restore industrial peace in the neighbourhood on just and honourable terms.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in view of the grave social and public interests involved in the continuance of the industrial dispute at Bethesda, this House condemns the inaction of His Majesty's Government, and declares its opinion that prompt intervention on their part is imperative to arrive at a just and effectual settlement."—(Mr. Asquith.)
  MR. KEIR HARDIEasked whether this was the proper stage at which to move an Amendment, of which he had given notice, to include the inaction of the Government regarding the disputes at Ballachulish and Settle in the proposed condemnation of the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: Such an Amendment would be out of order. It relates to a totally different subject.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,: This is the third or fourth occasion on which the dispute at Bethesda quarry has been the subject of discussion in this House. That the hon. Member for North Carnarvon should plead the cause of men who are his constituents is very intelligible, and I do not complain of his doing so on the present occasion, nor have I any complaint to offer of the tone and temper in which he has dealt
  506
  with the subject either now or on previous occasions, though I am bound to add that I think the speech to which we have just listened does not throw very much light upon the real subject at issue between the two sides to the dispute. But that the manner in which a Department of the Government has exercised the discretion vested in it by Parliament, of interfering or of not interfering in a particular dispute—after that subject has been discussed and voted upon more than once in the House—should be brought up again and made the subject of a solemn vote of censure is, in my judgment, a procedure which does require strong reason to justify it. Surely there ought to be some proportion between the means and the end. I admit that the refusal of the Board of Trade up to the present time to intervene in this dispute might very properly form the subject of discussion when the Board of Trade Vote was under debate in this House, but I really do think that either the Opposition must be very anxious to bring on a vote of censure or very hard up for material on which to found such a vote before they would take the course they have pursued to-day. Under these circumstances, I listened with some curiosity to hear the justification which the right hon. Gentleman intended to put forward. Well, I have listened to him, and I am free to confess that my curiosity has been turned into astonishment. Why, Sir, the very least I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman should have done was to prove that if the Board of Trade had intervened in this dispute there was a reasonable prospect—I won't go a bit further than that—that such intervention would have been attended with successful results. The right hon. Gentleman has not even made an attempt to prove that. He put the matter in quite another way. He said it is not possible to predict with certainty, or even strong probability, that success would be the result of intervention. Well nobody has contended, certainly I have not maintained, that a strong probability of success would be necessary before the Board of Trade used its powers under the Conciliation Act. What I maintain in this case is that there is practically no prospect of success whatever,

  507
  and it is on that ground that the Board of Trade has declined to use its powers under this Act. This is, to my mind, the essential and the only serious and vital question we have to discuss, but before I come to that, there are one or two subsidiary points touched upon by the right hon. Gentleman, to which I should like to refer.
  The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of this dispute as being a dispute of national importance. I do not wish at all to underrate the importance of the dispute at Bethesda quarry, but I am bound to say that when it is compared, as the hon. Member for North Carnarnvon has compared it to-day, to the coal strike which brought about the intervention of President Roosevelt, it is really necessary to ask the House to examine a little more closely what are the facts of the case. The coal dispute in the United States was one which not only directly affected the coal trade and almost the entire mining industry in the States, but also paralysed the whole commerce and industry of the country. That was a dispute which might fairly be described as of national importance. There have also been disputes which might fairly be described as of national importance in this country. There was the dispute in which Lord Rosebery ultimately intervened. That was undoubtedly a dispute of national importance. There, again, the entire industry of the country was affected; but what is the case in North Wales at the present time? The difference between Lord Penrhyn and his quarrymen is essentially a dispute of a local character. No doubt you cannot have a dispute which affects 2,000 or 3,000 men without grievous and lamentable consequences ensuing. I do not wish to minimise the consequences at all; but, after all; a dispute involving 2,000 or 3,000 men in a particular quarry is not comparable for a moment, for instance, with the South Wales coal dispute, in which Sir Edward Fry acted as conciliator, in which 30,000 men were involved, and which prejudicially affected the entire trade of that part of the country. Moreover, I will ask the attention of the House to this. Although originally this dispute affected between 2,000 and 3,000 men, at the present moment the quarry is working at something like half its capacity. I do not know the precise number of men who are working. I have had figures pre-
  508
  sented to me from different quarters and they do not exactly correspond with those mentioned by the hon. Member for Carnarvon, but, broadly speaking, there are at least 1,000 men employed there at the present time, of whom 700 were employed there before the dispute began. I believe that in reality it is something more. The hon. Member opposite told us that 100 or more of the men originally engaged in the quarry are dead, that 200 have emigrated, and I am informed that something like 200 have found employment in other parts of Wales. That being the case, the House will see that there are probably not more than 700 men at the present moment out of employment in connection with this dispute. I regret exceedingly that even 700 men should be out of employment in consequence of a difference between them and their employer, but again I say that I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is justified in describing this dispute as one of national importance.
  Then the right hon. Gentleman stated, and stated truly, that there are peculiar features in this dispute. There is one very peculiar feature, and that is that the employer is a single individual and is a man who, to all appearance, would prefer to close his quarry altogether and with draw from the business rather than give in on the principal subject at issue. That is obviously a peculiarity which makes the settlement of the dispute by outside parties a matter of peculiar difficulty. But the subject of the dispute is not peculiar. The subject of the dispute, at all events up to the late negotiations undertaken by Sir Edward Clarke, was a question of the recognition by Lord Penrhyn of a trade union committee as the means of communication between himself and his employees. The recognition by an employer of, the outside influence exercised by a trade union is a question which has constantly arisen between employers and employed, and has constantly been the subject of dispute between them, not only in this country but also in America. I am not going to express any opinion as to the rights or the wrongs in this question. Lord Penrhyn may be right or he may be wrong from his point of view, as the men may be from theirs. That is not, in my opinion, a subject on which the Government ought to be called upon to express an opinion, and especially the

  509
  Minister entrusted with the administration of the Conciliation Act. The right hon. Gentleman, on the whole, maintained the attitude he told us he intended to observe—that is to say, of not presenting the case as an advocate. On the whole I think he observed that attitude substantially, though not, perhaps, entirely. I cannot say that of the hon. Member who followed him. He did attempt to go more or less into the merits of the case; but I venture to express the hope that in the debate the House will endeavour, as far as possible, to restrict the discussion to the particular issue of the action, or rather the inaction, of the Board of Trade—the refusal of the Board of Trade to intervene under the Conciliation Act. I venture to assert this view of the matter strongly, because I really think that if we are to discuss the merits of the dispute we are more likely to embitter the dispute than to assuage the animosities that have been excited.
  I now come to what is really the essential matter—namely, could the Board of Trade, acting under the provisions of the Conciliation Act, have usefully intervened, and, if so, could it even at the eleventh hour usefully intervene? It may not, perhaps, be out of place that I should remind right hon. Gentlemen opposite that they have had no personal experience of the working of the Act of 1896. That Act was passed after they had left office, and they have not been in office since. Therefore they have not had any personal experience of the working of the Act. And I do think that when the House is discussing the wisdom or the unwisdom of the action of the Board of Trade, it should not be forgotten that we are acting on an eight years experience of this Act, which right hon. Gentlemen opposite have not had. In the administration of the Act the essential point to observe is that it is a voluntary act without a trace of compulsion in it, there is no compulsion on the Board of Trade to act unless they think fit to do so. The Board of Trade cannot exercise any kind of compulsion on the parties to the dispute. The Act expressly states that where a difference exists, the Board of Trade may, if they think fit, exercise all or any of the following powers. I should like to go into them seriatim, in order that the
  510
  House may judge whether we could have acted with advantage under any of the powers given to us. In the first place, the Board of Trade has the power to inquire into the cause and circumstances of the dispute. In the second place, it may, on its own initiative, take action with a view to bringing the parties to the dispute together. In the third place, it, may, upon the application of one of the parties to a dispute, appoint a conciliator; and, lastly, on the application of both parties, it may appoint an arbitrator. We may set aside the last power as a thing out of the question on the present occasion, inasmuch as only one party has made an application to the Board of Trade. As regards the first power, to inquire into the cause and circumstances of the difference, we have taken the steps always taken by the Board of Trade in all cases of dispute of which we receive information. We took such steps as we thought desirable to inform ourselves of the circumstances, including the sending out of schedules to both parties, which were duly answered and returned. I know there are some hon. Members who wish that we should use this power to inquire into the cause and circumstances of the dispute, not only for inquiry, but also with a view to making a report for the purpose of guiding public opinion. Now, I submit that that is not the purpose of that power, that that is not contemplated by Sub-section (a) of Section 2 of the Act. If it had been contemplated undoubtedly provision would have been made in the Act for a report. And let the House observe this. In the Act as originally introduced there was a power not merely to inquire into the cause and circumstances, but also to report. An Amendment, however, was moved in Grand Committee to omit the words "to report," and that Amendment was accepted by my right hon. friend the then President of the Board of Trade. I think, therefore, that it is clear that the Board of Trade could not have been expected to act under Sub-section A of the clause. With regard to initiating mediation under Sub sections B and C, I admit that the Board of Trade has the power to intervene, but, quite apart from the general discretion

  511
  which the Act gives to the Board, it is called upon directly before appointing a conciliator to take into consideration the adequacy of the means for conciliation, the circumstances of the trade and district. The words of the Act were carefully selected to lay no absolute duty on the Board of Trade to intervene; it has guarded the discretion of the Board at every point. Now, what is the test the Board of Trade should apply to ascertain whether any case is a proper one for intervention? In my judgment there is only one test, whether such intervention is likely to conduce to a settlement of the dispute. If it appears that such intervention is not likely to conduce to a settlement, then the Act lays no duty on the Board to intervene, but rather suggests that it should not intervene. With respect to this particular dispute, it is really beyond controversy that, from all that has transpired, if the Board had sent down a conciliator to Bethesda there was not the slightest prospect that such action would have tended to bring the dispute to an end. I may be asked how I can be sure of that without having actually tried it. Well, we had various indications sufficient for us to form an absolute conclusion on that point. In the first place there was the past history of the dispute between Lord Penrhyn and his quarrymen in 1896, when the Board of Trade did attempt to intervene. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Board of Trade was better advised then than now—[An HON. MEMBER: Better inspired.]—better inspired than now. But I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the answer to the Board of Trade from Lord Penrhyn was conveyed in the words he has quoted declining to accept a suggestion the acceptance of which, Lord Penrhyn said, would establish a precedent for interference with his private affairs. The Board of Trade replied by saying they could not send down an official to be present at the conference if that would be contrary to Lord Penrhyn's wishes. Therefore, in effect, when the Board of Trade ascertained that interference would prove useless they did not persist or press the matter.
  MR. ASQUITH: They expressed their opinion of Lord Penrhyn's refusal.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That may be, but they did not do what the right hon. Gentleman says we ought to have done. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me, but I may say that perhaps we have gained a little more experience of the administration of the Act since then and are more inclined to ascertain the probability of successful action before attempting to interfere. Of course there may be cases when there is a probability that the intervention of a conciliator may produce the desired result, but in these cases we have never started with the absolute certainty that if we sent a conciliator one party to the dispute would refuse to have anything to do with him. That is the point the House should consider. The Act does not indicate that there is any obligation on the part of the Board of Trade to send down a conciliator with the knowledge that such action would be futile. One quotation from Lord Penrhyn shows that he would not accept the services of a conciliator from the Board of Trade, and we know that also from a communication made to us from the men themselves at the end of last year, when they asked for the appointment of a conciliator. In that communication the men described the attempts already made to secure a settlement of the dispute, and among other documents sent to the Board of Trade was a pamphlet containing the correspondence between Lord Penrhyn and the Carnarvonshire County Council, and from passages in this correspondence it is quite clear that had the Board sent a conciliator Lord Penrhyn would have refused to receive him or negotiate with him. Lord Penrhyn, writing to the representative of the County Council, said he must decline to recognise the right of any person or body corporate not connected with the quarry to interfere. Then he was asked by the men if he would be prepared to accept the services of the Right Hon. A. J. Balfour or Lord Rosebery or both as conciliators, and he replied—
  "I regret I must decline to accede to your suggestion."

  513
  That we were perfectly right in our conclusion was also shown by the statement of Lord Penrhyn's counsel at the late trial and by Lord Penrhyn's letter to The Times, published on March 21st, in which he wrote—
  "It has also been admitted that the main object of the strikers in 1896, and later, and now has been and is to compel me to recognise the Quarry Committee and to deal with it as a representative body, and this, mainly because it is not a representative body, is what I am resolved not to do in any circumstances. It was for this reason, and because in my opinion there was no subject matter for discussion that I declined to encourage any action by the Board of Trade under the Conciliation Act."
  This extract is absolutely conclusive, I look upon this matter purely from the point of view of bringing the dispute to a termination, and I venture to say, after what passed in 1897, that anybody reading the correspondence that passed between Lord Penrhyn and the Board of Trade—a rather angry correspondence, I am afraid it was—will see that of all possible conciliation that of the Board of Trade had the least chance of success. I hope I have convinced the House that the chances of success were nil.But it may be said the publication or report of a conciliator might have been of public service. The Act says that if a person is appointed to act as a conciliator he shall inquire into the cause and circumstances of the dispute and otherwise shall endeavour to bring about a settlement of the dispute, and shall report his proceedings to the Board of Trade. He is not to report as to the merits of the dispute for the guidance of the public, but is to make a report of his proceedings. I have carefully looked through the report written by Sir Edward Fry describing his proceedings as conciliator in the South Wales coal strike. In that case also one party to the dispute refused to receive or recognise Sir Edward Fry, and he had to return without having effected a settlement of the dispute. There is no word in his report as to the merits of the dispute, and I do not believe that in the whole history of the administration of the Act it would be found that the conciliator thought it his duty to pass judgment or form an estimate as to the merits of the dispute. This case was really very different from that case. If the Board of
  514
  Trade had known, when it asked Sir Edward Fry to undertake this duty, that conciliation in the proper sense of the term would be impossible, because the masters refused to have anything to do with him as a conciliator, I feel no doubt that the Board would never have sent him on such a mission. In the circumstances Sir Edward Fry did what he could, not to persuade the men to take any particular course, but to lead them to place their case in as plain a manner as possible before the masters, and that is the full extent of what he did. He did not report on the merits of the case, but in the words of the Act he merely described his proceedings. I think I said the other day when this subject was being discussed, that the Act might conceivably be stretched in such a way as to enable the Board to send down a conciliator who should make a report intended to guide public opinion. But I think that such a proceeding would be stretching the Act. I do not think it was ever contemplated by the Act, and in this particular instance, had such a course been pursued, I feel convinced that it would not have advanced the settlement of the dispute one iota. It would, however, have prejudiced the action of the Board in dealing with future cases under the Act.
  There are one or two other matters which ought not to be left entirely out of sight in connection with the suggestion that the Board of Trade ought to send down a conciliator whether Lord Penrhyn would or would not receive him. Let me remind the House that—and this is a very material fact—in 1897 the men declined the intervention of the Board of Trade. They themselves seem to have felt that there was really nothing to be hoped for from the intervention of the Board of Trade. But in the present case the men did not apply to the Board of Trade until two years after the commencement of the dispute—in other words, when their resources were falling low. I do not mean to suggest that the men in making their application did not desire that the dispute should be settled, but I think they also thought that the mere fact of the Board of Trade intervening would probably assist them to get further funds to carry on the. dispute. From time to time the Board receives applications for intervention, forwarded when one of the parties to a

  515
  dispute is nearly exhausted, and our experience has shown us that it is necessary to be extremely careful in dealing with applications of that sort, which may have the prima facie appearance, not so much to secure the settlement of the dispute, as to endeavour to secure support for one side or the other. Then there is another point we have to consider. Not very long after the application was made to us from the men out of work, we also had an application from the men who had returned to work, including the strangers employed, numbering, I think, at that time close upon 1,000 men. The application of the latter was that the Board of Trade should not intervene. The Act directs the Board, if it thinks fit, to exercise its power to appoint a conciliator on the application of the employers or workmen interested. Will anybody contend that the men actually engaged in the working of the quarries were not workmen interested? I do not put this forward as a decisive consideration. I should not have paid any attention to it had there been, in my opinion, a prospect of settling the dispute. Still, I do mention it as a material consideration. Lastly, I have further to observe that the Act distinctly says that the Board has to take into consideration the adequacy of the means available for conciliation in the dispute. In this particular case there was a regular arrangement made under the settlement of 1897, under which the men could meet the management and lay their complaints before the management. Unless we had reason to believe that those means had been properly tried and had been exhausted, we might, on that ground alone, I think, have to consider before appointing a conciliator. But the main contention I have to put before the House is this—that we did not appoint a conciliator because we were convinced that to do so could not lead to any useful result. It has been said:—What harm would there have been in appointing a conciliator? Having regard to the former relations between Lord Penrhyn and the Board of Trade, I think that any attempt to force a conciliator on him would unquestionably have embittered and envenomed the dispute. Moreover, if we had appointed a conciliator, I cannot imagine any case in which we could have refused to do so on
  516
  an application being made to us from either side. I cannot conceive a case in which it was clearer that the intervention of the Board would have been useless. Therefore, had we consented to intervene in this case we should practically have to do so in every case in which application is made. But the Act expressly confers on the Board a discretion. If we had consented to act on this occasion that discretion would have disappeared.
  I have given to the House my reasons for being convinced that the intervention of the Board of Trade could not have had any result; but I should like to ask right hon. Gentlemen opposite a question. If they are successful in carrying this Motion, the inevitable result would be that His Majesty's present advisers would resign, and presumably a Government would be formed from right hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite. In that event what action would they take? They would have been brought into office because their predecessors had failed to use the powers given to them for conciliation. The new Government would presumably be under the immediate obligation of putting these powers into operation. Suppose they sent down a conciliator, who made a report of the kind which seems to be desired by hon. Members opposite—a report going into the merits of the case, with a view to directing public opinion, and expressing the view that Lord Penrhyn was in the wrong and his quarrymen in the right. Nobody who has followed the history of the dispute could suppose that Lord Penrhyn would accept an ex parte opinion of that kind. So long as the men could hold out the dispute would continue. What would the new Government do then? Their position would be almost ridiculous—certainly somewhat humiliating. I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman disclaim any idea of advocating further legislation—anything in the nature of compulsory arbitration. A rumour—to which I admit I never attached any importance—credited the right hon. Gentleman and some of his friends with the intention of bringing forward a Bill to expropriate Lord Penrhyn from the quarries, in which case the property would have been, I suppose, put up to auction or worked by the State. No doubt that was an absurd

  517
  suggestion, but then, what would the new Government do on the undoubted failure of any efforts they might make to settle the dispute? I suppose that such an event as the defeat of the Government did not enter into their calculations. They took it for granted, no doubt, that they could attack us, and assume the rôle of the champions of the interests of labour without incurring the responsibilities which success in such a case would necessarily entail upon them. It may be, regarded as a party manœuvre, the step they have now taken is a more or less dexterous one. But I feel bound to say that the Motion which they have made this afternoon, while it cannot possibly do any good to the men who are now out of employment at Bethesda quarries, cannot but exercise a prejudicial effect upon the future working of the Conciliation Act, the provisions of which they ask us to put in force in connection with this dispute. That Act can be successfully worked only by the exercise of the utmost discretion and the most rigid impartiality, and I say that upon the Party opposite will rest the responsibility of having made more difficult the exercise of that discretion and the maintenance of that impartiality by dragging into the party arena a question which, in the opinion of everybody who wishes to see this Act bear good and useful fruit, ought above all others to be excluded from it.
  MR. BURT: I should have been very well content to leave my view of the position as presented in the admirable speech of my right hon. friend the Member for East Fife, but there are one or two points which perhaps I may usefully contribute to the discussion. The right hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to think that my right hon. friend had rather exaggerated when he spoke of this as a question of national importance. I associate myself with my right hon. friend in that expression. I think it will be admitted that the conflict is one of very great gravity. I have known strikes and lock-outs which involved greater numbers of men, but we have had in this district chronic unrest for the last six or seven years. Of that period I should say that fully one-half
  518
  has been occupied by strikes and lockouts. Does the right hon Gentleman say that unless thousands or tens of thousands of men are involved in a conflict, and the trade of the whole country is paralysed, that it is not a matter of national importance? This matter suggests, if it does not raise, questions that go to the very foundations of the rights of private property in land. As to where the faults may be, I shall copy the example of my right hon. friend; I will not apportion the blame, but blame there is somewhere. I have had the opportunity of meeting the quarrymen of North Wales in mass meetings. I never saw a finer body of workmen in my life. They are sober and law-abiding; under circumstances of extreme temptation there has been no serious crime in the locality. As to Lord Penrhyn, I shall say nothing except this—that as an employer he is out-of-date. This conflict is going on at a time when conciliation is spreading. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us the other night that the great lesson to employers and employed, to capitalist and workman, is that they should come closer together with the view of arriving at a mutual understanding. Conciliation is spreading, and that is almost the only—at any rate, it is the most—encouraging feature in connection with our industrial life. If we compare 1897 with last year we find that, whereas in the former year there were about 750,000 workmen under conciliation boards, in 1902 the number had risen to 1,250,000. Is it not very desirable—I am sure everybody thinks it is—that this spirit of conciliation and goodwill should spread over the whole of the country, and reach even Bethesda, and, if possible, Lord Penrhyn? Reference has been made to the difficulty of outside interference. I know how delicate and difficult it is. More than once in my own experience I have found that the inopportune intervention of fussy but well-meaning people has done much more harm than good. But we have had instances of successful intervention. The late Bishop of Durham intervened at the right moment, and other instances can be and have been given. I entirely agree with my right hon. friend that the State has peculiar advantages in the way of intervening. The President of the Board

  519
  of Trade has truly said that the intervention must be accompanied by tact and impartiality. Of course these qualities are needed, but courage also is required. He who intervenes in cases of this kind must not fear his fate too much. He undoubtedly has to risk something. He has to risk want of success, but I think it scarcely likely, in a case of this kind, that more harm than good would be done.
  The right hon. Gentleman has told us what his powers are. I understand that his great objection is that he is convinced beforehand that Lord Penrhyn would not accept a conciliator from the Board of Trade. He has also told us that the Act is voluntary, that it has not a touch or tincture of compulsion in it. That is perfectly true, and I, for one, would not have it otherwise. I am not in favour of compulsory arbitration, and compulsory conciliation seems to be a contradiction in terms. It is like compulsory brotherly love. Conciliation, like the quality of mercy, must not be put under compulsion. But the Act does give the right hon. Gentleman certain powers. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has not the power to appoint an arbitrator unless both parties ask it. But one of the parties to the dispute has asked him to intervene and appoint a conciliator. The men asked Lord Penrhyn two years ago to go to arbitration. It may be a rather sweeping assertion, but my own feeling is that the party who refuses arbitration, whether employer or workman, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred by that refusal places himself in the wrong. The men offered to submit the case to arbitration. I know this has no bearing upon the Government, but what has a bearing upon the Government is the fact that they have power of initiation. The right hon. Gentleman said he knew that Lord Penrhyn would refuse to accept the conciliator. Very likely he would. But I do not think that that justifies the right hon. Gentleman or the Board of Trade in refusing to appoint a conciliator and to collect evidence. By taking this course information would be collected, and it would come from an unbiassed and unprejudiced quarter. Pressure would be brought to bear upon Lord Penrhyn, and I hold, Sir, that in these disputes it is necessary very often to bring
  520
  pressure to bear upon workmen as well as upon employers. If you collect and disseminate information, you then have a basis for an effective appeal to public opinion, and you may depend upon it that public opinion in its verdict will be just and fair to all parties. I believe that in the long run public opinion will compel whichever party shows stupidity and stubbornness to yield to reason and common sense.
  MR. VICARY GIBBS: The case for the Government seems to be such a strong one that I do not think the contest will be so unequal as might otherwise be supposed at first sight. I cannot conceive on what grounds the Front Opposition Bench has moved a vote of censure except it be to show that they are in line with the Labour Party. Nothing has happened since the discussion in March last, except that there has been a libel action in which Lord Penrhyn has recovered damages from the other side, although they defended themselves on the grounds which have been advanced today. What is the allegation which would have justified the Board of Trade intervening in this matter? It is that there had been tyranny so gross and that the extent of the mischief which this dispute is doing to the community was so large that it was the duty of the Government to take steps to stop it. What is the head and front of Lord Penrhyn's offending? It is that he refuses to allow the Quarry Committee to interfere, and refuses to take back a larger number of men than his quarry will hold for its economical working. [Opposition cries of "No."] Hon. Gentlemen will have plenty of time to deal with my errors and blunders. It is said that Lord Penrhyn objects to his workmen combining, but he does not do so. He is perfectly prepared to allow combination among his men, and I will show that that combination is satisfactory, but he is not prepared to allow a committee to intervene between him and his workmen, more especially a committee which is not representative of the whole of the workmen, and which interferes in the government of the quarry. He is determined that every

  521
  man in his employment shall have the opportunity of coming to him direct, or to his manager on his behalf, for the redress of grievances. Let me read an extract from their own minute book.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: May I ask the date of that?
  MR. VICARY GIBBS: It is a resolution which was passed when the Quarry Committee was first started. [An Hon. Member: 1874.] The resolution reads—
  "Resolved that no complaint be received except from one who was a member of the union."
  Is that a position which Lord Penrhyn could be asked to tolerate? Should the men in his employment, who were doing their work properly, be shut out from all communication with their employer unless they paid fees to an organisation of which they did not approve? Let me read another resolution from the same book—
  "To obtain for the next Committee meeting the names of those who refuse to pay to the union, and that the representative adopt the most secret method for doing so."
  That is not the sort of organisation I should like to have amongst a body of labourers or quarrymen working for me, and I am not surprised that Lord Penrhyn does not receive this organisation with any enthusiasm, more especially when talking of tyranny. There can be no greater tyranny than an organisation which acts secretly and for the purpose of intimidation in order to force men into its ranks. The union does not embrace more than 50 per cent. of the quarrymen in its ranks, and it was monstrous, therefore, that it should claim to represent the whole quarry. I also said that the Quarry Committee had interfered with the working of the quarry, and may I quote one extract from the same source on this point—
  "Resolved that we approve of compelling crews in which there are two partners to take an additional partner."
  What can be a more glaring instance of direct interference with the working of a quarry and injuring its economical working than that? Is it tyranny for Lord Penrhyn to insist as a condition to any arrangement between him and his men that there should be complete
  522
  access to him for all his men, whether unionist or non-unionist for the redress of grievances, or to prevent the virtual control of his quarry passing to a body which are not representative of the men? As to the question of a substitute for the Quarry Committee, Lord Penrhyn offered it and it was accepted by the workmen, and that is offered again now by Lord Penrhyn if the Quarry Committee be abandoned. Let us consider whether that is a fair substitute, and whether it truly gives the power of combination to the men. I do not suppose that my own opinion will have much weight, and therefore I will give the opinion of others. The financial secretary of the quarrymen in August, 1897, said "he thought that all would acknowledge that that substitute was real combination."The Daily Chronicle, which was the organ of the men in that dispute, said—
  "The right of effective combination, of effective representation, and of effective collective action all round has been secured."
  That is not all. The hon. Member for Carnarvonshire, who seconded this Motion, sang almost a pæan on the subject. He said—
  "He congratulated them upon the right of combination, the abolition of individualism and the recognition of collectivism."
  That was accepted in 1897 and recognised by the organs of the workmen as an admirable arrangement for the men, and that arrangement is open now. I suppose it will be said that the spirit of the arrangement was not observed. [An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.] Does the hon. Member say that that was proved instead of disproved in the trial a few days ago? The only cases which were advanced were those of men who had been dismissed, and it was insinuated had been dismissed because of their action in favour of the union. Those five cases were examined, and I unhesitatingly say that they all broke down.
  A great deal has been said against Lord Penrhyn. I do not know him myself. I never saw him, and would not know him if I met him in the street. One thing has never been said against him so far as I know, and that is that he is a rogue. He would be a rogue if he allowed a man to be dismissed under

  523
  the pretence that he had committed some offence against the rules and regulations of the quarry, whereas he was merely dismissed because he was a member of the union. [OPPOSITION cries of dissent] I think that is not the general opinion of Lord Penrhyn. I do not think you would find that it is the opinion among the Welsh quarrymen themselves. One of these five men was inefficient and was not re-engaged, and the others were men who had committed offences. Two of them had committed an offence which was extremely dangerous to themselves and to the other men in the quarry beside them—offences against which they had themselves protested and asked to have stringent regulations passed against. They were offences against not only the rules of the quarry but the rules of the Home Office. These men were removed, and I think very properly on that account. Another man was removed for an offence which Lord Penrhyn offered to disclose if the other side wished it, and the other side gracefully declined the offer. What it may have been I am not prepared to say. It evidently was an offence which the other side preferred that Lord Penrhyn should not disclose. Another man was discharged for gross insolence to one of the managers, and for refusing to apologise therefor, and as far as the jury were concerned, they considered his action perfectly proper. I should like to point out that this is not peculiarly arbitrary conduct on the part of Lord Penrhyn. There is no quarry in Wales where a quarry committee is allowed. The very same fight took place in the case of the Taff Vale dispute. The very same fight took place in the case of the Dinorwic Quarry. That dispute took place there in 1886, and the Quarry Committee was then got rid of, because it was recognised as a nuisance and mischief to the quarry. As to the extent of the dispute, I am informed that there are now 1,000 men at work in the quarry, and that the maximum required for the satisfactory, efficient, and complete working of the quarry is another 1,200 men. That is to say, 2,200 men altogether. Well, I quite admit that it is a most distressing thing that there should be any men out of employment or in trouble in this matter,
  524
  but it is impossible to compare this dispute, important as it is, with such things as the great mining strike of 1893, when 300,000 men were involved; the South Wales coal strike, when 100,000 men were involved; or the boot and shoe strike, when 60,000 men were involved. This is a local dispute. It is a most interesting dispute, though not a very big one, because it does represent a great and important principle. I quite agree that it represents on one side a determined, courageous, and as I think generous and honourable employer, doing what he believes to be right; and on the other side, a body of men determined to pull him to his kness if they can, and to call in the aid of the Government in doing so if they can, because they think the success of Lord Penrhyn in managing the quarry as he is managing it for his own advantage and that of the men, is a deathblow to the aims of gentlemen who desire to bring every trade and every manufacturer under the direct control and interference of the State.
  Let me for a moment examine a few of the statements which have been made to-day, and on the 5th of March, by the hon. Member for North Carnarvon. I will only deal with those which are sufficiently specific and admit of an answer. I cannot answer the statement that Lord Penrhyn is a "bloody tyrant." I can only say that he is a high-minded nobleman, or something of that kind, but then we are "no forrader." The hon. Member says there is no discipline in the quarry. How does he know? And why, if he knows it, does he not give some evidence of the fact? There are some convictions for assault, but there are no other troubles that I know of. There are 1,000 men engaged in the quarry earning fine wages—better wages than they have ever earned in the past. [OPPOSITION cries of dissent.] Oh, yet, they are earning better wages. I am not saying that there is any peculiar generosity on the part of Lord Penrhyn in the matter. What I say is that if you get rid of the Quarry Committee you can manage the quarry better and afford to pay better wages. The hon Member says also that the quarry is worked at a loss. I do not know why that should worry hon.

  525
  Gentlemen opposite, but as a matter of fact I am able to say that they are entirely mistaken in supposing that it is worked at a loss. It is working very well. He says that the local trade has been ruined What is that statement based upon? It is based upon the fact that during the last three years one butcher's shop has been closed, owing to circumstances entirely outside of the strike, and as a matter of fact other shops, not supplying articles which I can describe as necessaries, have been opened in Bethesda during the last two or three years. Let me take another point. It was quoted as a great grievance that men were suspended for two days if late in coming to their work in the quarry. No doubt that does seem hard, but I should like to remind hon. Members who are not acquainted with the subject that a quarry is not like an ordinary factory, where men come in and are marked, as was the case with us at College, with pencil and paper. The men are drawn from all parts of the country, and according to where they live they enter the quarry at the nearest points to their homes, and it is therefore essential that there should be a strict rule as to late coming in the morning. I may say that the rule was altered in 1901, although perhaps without the knowledge of the hon. Gentleman who referred to the subject. The suspension does not take place on the first occasion. On the second occasion it is for a quarter of a day, and on the third occasion for half a day. There is great complaint that the men are not allowed to discuss their grievances in their own time. It does not mean that they are not allowed to discuss grievances in their own time outside the quarry, but it means that the dinner hour is not to be used for the holding of mass meetings. For, obviously, if you have a quarry with a large number of union and non-union men and you have public meetings of one class in the sight of the other you will very soon have disturbance and the peace broken. It is most reasonable and proper that Lord Penrhyn should say—I may say that it is not Lord Penrhyn alone but every other quarry proprietor—that he will not allow public meetings during the dinner hour. We are told that the customary holiday is taken
  526
  away. I honestly say that I do not know what that refers to. I have made as close inquiry as I can, and so far as I can find out no change whatever has been made in the holidays since 1885. I cannot answer that complaint until I know the particular thing to which the hon. Member who mentioned it refers.
  An important matter which has been referred to is in regard to the sweating of men. The hon. Member said that under the contract system men were sweated. Well, my answer to that is, if that be so there can be nothing more to Lord Penrhyn's disadvantage and nothing to which he would more strongly object. If there has been sweating it has been of the men by the men. What has happened may have been that contractors have compelled their quarry-men to return to them a portion of the wages fixed by Lord Penrhyn as payment for the work. Although I have no right to speak on Lord Penrhyn's behalf I will take upon myself to say that if any one can show to him a better way than that at present existing to stop workmen from cheating their fellow workmen, he will be the first to welcome it and adopt it. What is the objection to the contract system? It is not that it conduces to sweating. The bargain system is at least as open to the risk of sweating as the contract system. The objection to the contract system is that it is a labour saving system, that it means the more economical working of the quarry, and that fewer men can get the same amount of money out of the quarry. Then the conduct of the strikers has been referred to, and I am not going to reflect on them. Of course I can well understand that they were sorely tempted to break the law, and some of them did break the law. They were not angels, but I do not think they behaved very badly in the circumstances. I think there were fifty-six convictions for assault during the last three years. Undoubtedly there was serious terrorism, practised against the non-union men. Those men have had a miserable life, and their wives and children have suffered from it, and I sympathise most heartily with Lord Penrhyn in his determination that under no circumstances will he sacrifice the men who have stood by

  527
  him for the men who have fought against him. To be chivalrous and forgiving is one thing, and to betray your friends to suit your enemies is a thing I cannot sympathise with.
  I shall leave Lord Penrhyn now and refer to the Board of Trade, which is ostensibly the subject of this Motion. Let us see what their duty was. We are asked, why did not the Board of Trade inquire and report. I consider that it would be a monstrous abuse of my right hon. friend's position if, in the face of the fact that the House deliberately considered the proposal and rejected it he had used the Conciliation Act for the purpose of blackmail. That is the only use I can see that it could be put to here. The suggestion seems to be that the right hon. Gentleman ought to have sent down someone to inquire and to make a report. Then the hon. Member went on, in common with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, to object to compulsory arbitration—as I do. Well, as to this Act. I do not say what I think of it. It reminds me of the Presbyterian Scotsman who got into low water and got a billet to swing the censer in a Roman Catholic Church in Malta; and as he was working his censer up and down he did so to the tune of "If it's daeing nae guid, it's daeing nae harm." That is exactly my idea of the Act. It is a sham. It never can be of any real use. Any occassion on which the Board of Trade might usefully intervene under the Act is when an Archbishop or retired judge could come down and put the matter straight. If the parties to a dispute do not come to terms without this Act, you cannot get them to do so under it. There has been an attempt in the debate to contrast unfavourably the action of the Board of Trade now and in 1896. The Board of Trade were children at the business in 1896. They did not know precisely what kind of Act it was. They thought they were going to effect a social revolution; that they were going to manage the whole trade of the country. They sailed gaily on and came to grief; and now they learn that when one side is determined not to have anything to do with the other, interference is useless, or worse than useless; that it is not a question of wages, whether the men should be paid 16s. or 18s. accord-
  528
  ing to the higgling of the market; it is not a question whether the market for slates is rising or falling, and that 6d. should be taken off or added to wages, on which an outsider might come in, and with the parties met together, put the thing right. This is a case which the one side has got to win and the other lose. It is a case in which Lord Penrhyn says "black" and the men "white," and that no outsider can say is "grey" or any other colour. Mark, this is a point in favour of the Board of Trade. Lord Penrhyn asked the men at the beginning of the strike to meet him and discuss grievances; but they took no notice of it, and they do not do it now. They decline altogether to do so, because they consider that the recognition of the existence of the committee is a condition precedent to entering into any negotiation at all. Well, in these circumstances, how can you expect the Board of Trade to intervene? You must give a discretion to a Government Department. [An HON MEMBER: You must give them common sense.] To give them sense is beyond my power. You must give them discretion, and if you deprive them of discretion, and say that they must go into every dispute between employer and employed—whether they would do any good or not—all I can say is that I wish my right hon. friend to get out of his present office as soon as he can.
  MR. HALDANE: I do not know that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade will appreciate the defence of his Department made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Albans. The policy of the hon. Gentleman appears to have reached its full development, its highest stature, when it reached the idea of doing nothing. The early phase of the Act in which it was believed that something could be done, apparently belonged to a time the merits of which the hon. Member deprecated. But what ever may be the merits of the hon. Member's speech in defence of the action of the Board of Trade, there was another point of view which was interesting, and which the hon. Member painted for us—a picture of the facts, not as they are, but

  529
  as presented in the minds of the friends of Lord Penrhyn. If there is one thing which the hon. Member's speech has brought out more distinctly than another, it is the necessity of supplying to this House and to the public some impartial and accurate record of these facts, on which public opinion may be brought to bear. The hon. Member has given full credit to the intentions of Lord Penrhyn. I believe the noble Lord to be a high-minded gentleman, although at the same time I think he is actuated by an altogether, I might almost say—I do not wish to use an offensive term—ridiculous view of the issue involved in the controversy between him and his men. I do not wish to judge Lord Penrhyn on fragmentary quotations from his statements. I could quote with as deadly effect from these as from any made by his men; but I have here the shorthand notes of the conference between Lord Penrhyn and the representatives of his men on 18th March, 1897, when Mr. Young, on behalf of Lord Penrhyn, put forward views which go far beyond those attributed to him by the hon. Member for St. Albans as the definition of quarry management. It seems to me that Lord Penryhn at this conference had a most confused notion as to what the issue was. Mr. Williams said he wished to ask—
  "I take it that the recognition of a Committee is denied to us?"
  And Lord Penrhyn replied:—
  "The recognition of a Committee which attempts to interfere with the management—that is what is denied you."
  Then the representative of the men goes on to say—
  "We, on our side, wish to have a Committee which would be authorised to receive complaints, and we pointedly stated that we have no intention at all of interfering with the management."
  Then Mr. Williams goes on to say that—
  "The prosperity of the last twelve years in my opinion is not inconsistent with the fact that the men have grievances. I gather from the fact of the men continuing to remain out for such a length of time, although during that time they have been offered work on three different occasions, that it is a proof that they have grievances, and that the mode by which they were to convey these grievances to the management was not acceptable to the men. Now that the men are asking for a committee to submit those grievances, I fail to see why
  530
  they should not have it. Would it be too much to ask your lordship to define the limits where the interference with the management comes in?"
  Then there was a long discussion, and finally there came out this significant fact. The men asked Mr. Young, who spoke on behalf of Lord Penrhyn, whether it was not true that his lordship objected to trade unions at all; and that he quite frankly admitted. Then there was asked a question when the answer was that the difference between the management and the men was that the managers objected to the union and would not recognise it in any way whatever. And the men asked, "Is not that so?" And Mr. Young said, "We will not recognise the union in any way." I am not imputing carelessness to Lord Penrhyn or Mr. Young in any sense, but I protest against a fragmentary portion of the views of the men being put forward, as showing that the men have been speaking in an unreasonable fashion. If ever there was a dispute in which we should have some one who could come in between the two parties to a dispute with a view of ascertaining the real and true issue this is such a case. This is, as the right hon. Gentleman said, in beginning the debate, a serious question for which to censure the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade said that there were only 3,000 men involved and therefore that it was not a dispute of great magnitude; but I know of no controversy which has written itself more deeply in the public imagination than this wretched, miserable, squabble which has reduced a whole country side to a state of destitution, and no step can be more justified than that which the Opposition have taken, which may possibly have the effect of bringing about a better state of things in regard to this unhappy dispute.
  MR. LYTTELTON: Is it denied that ever since August 1897 the men can submit any grievance to the management through a deputation representing all the employees, and freely elected by them. I understand from what my hon. friend has said——
  MR. SPEAKER. Order, order. This is going beyond the limits of an interruption.
  MR. HALDANE: I will tell the hon. Gentleman how the answer to that point strikes me. I have endeavoured, with all the assiduity I could, to get at the real facts. That point came under discussion in the negotiations between Sir Edward Clarke and the junior counsel representing the men. Lord Penrhyn in his evidence said that there was no question outstanding except the question of the Quarry Committee, There upon Sir Edward Clarke did what he could to bring the parties together, and it looked as if the dispute were reduced to this—How many men Lord Penrhyn was to take back. I do not say that Lord Penrhyn pledged himself; but it appears from the correspondence that the matter reduced itself to this—How many men could Lord Penrhyn afford to take back? As regards the point to which the hon Gentleman alludes, Sir Edward Clarke, at any rate, thought that that had been got over. Then there is a hiatus, and a final letter from Sir Edward Clarke after he had again seen Lord Penrhyn in which he regrets he can do nothing further in the matter. Therefore, I am not in a position to answer the hon. Gentleman's question; but the fact remains that the negotiations with Sir Edward Clarke showed that the men were prepared to accept any arrangement which they could accept with loyalty to those who had maintained their cause. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be that it was impossible for the Board of Trade to continue intervening in this matter. The first consideration on which he founded that proposition was, however, rather unfortunate, because he alluded to the intervention of the Board of Trade in 1897. The lock-out occurred in September 1896, and in October the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, then President of the Board of Trade, opened up communication with Lord Penrhyn. There were letters from the right hon. Gentleman and also from Sir Courtenay Boyle. Then there came a point when Lord Penrhyn and the Board of Trade were at issue. The Board of Trade proposed a meeting at which one of their representatives should be present. Lord Penrhyn objected to that on the ground that it meant an interference with his private affairs.
  532
  Did the Board of Trade give the matter up? Not at all; became in the February following the right hon. Gentleman wrote to Lord Penrhyn, and referred to a request of the men to have an interpreter and a shorthand writer at a meeting, in order that they might have a record of what took place. That meeting took place; and although it did not at the moment lead to the determination of the lockout, it was so fruitful that in three or four weeks the parties came so near an understanding, the facts became so much more intelligible, and the issues so much smaller, that the lock-out terminated. That was a very creditable result from the intervention of the Board of Trade in 1896 and 1897. I only wish the right hon. Gentleman who now occupies the position of President of the Board of Trade had in the same fashion taken his life in his hands.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I must differ from the right hon. Gentleman as to the result which he attributes to the intervention of the Board of Trade.
  MR. HALDANE: I am relying on the shorthand notes and on the sequence of events. I cannot dive into the motives which moved Lord Penrhyn, but it seems to me that the intervention of the Board of Trade was at that time fruitful. But I go further. The Act of Parliament enjoined on the Board of Trade the duty of taking such steps as could be taken to put the public in possession of full information with regard to such matters when they were of sufficient importance. The Act of 1896 expressed a policy which for the future was to be the policy of the Board of Trade. It gave to the Board of Trade in definite terms a certain power; and when power was given in that fashion it represented one of the matters which was within the ordinary competence of the Board of Trade. That power was given under two sections of the Act of 1896—in not only the main section, but also in the fifth section, which provides that the Board of Trade is from time to time to present to Parliament a Report of its proceedings under the Act. The Act gave the Board of Trade power, on the application of either party to a trade

  533
  dispute, to appoint a conciliator, and the duty of the conciliator is to inquire into the cause and circumstances of the difference, to endeavour to bring about a settlement, and to report to the Board. The Board is then in a position to inquire further if it is so disposed; but, at any rate, it has to present a Report of the proceedings to Parliament, the object being that Parliament should be in possession of material to enable it to judge whether the officials of the Board of Trade had done their duty in the matter, and also to enable public opinion to form a judgment. Suppose that course had been taken in this case? It is no answer to say that the situation looked difficult. I know that Lord Penrhyn is a single individual, and that he is a person of strong views; but I believe that his views rest on nothing irrational in his mind. The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with Mr. Pierpont Morgan; surely he could likewise negotiate with Lord Penrhyn. It was open to him to send down someone of sufficient position to ask Lord Penrhyn for an interview, which Lord Penrhyn could not refuse, and who could put before Lord Penrhyn the views which occurred to an outsider who had familiarised himself with the facts. Who could possibly say that the result of that intervention might not alter Lord Penrhyn's view, and might not have a very considerable effect in bringing himself and the men together, and in the men putting their wishes in a form more agreeable to Lord Penrhyn. I myself feel that it is impossible to say that the best is being done by a policy of doing nothing. I think the President of the Board of Trade would have been in a better position if he could have said that he had done his very best, rather than to come down to the House and say he had done nothing for fear he should get a snub. I entirely agree with my right hon. friend that it is perfectly impossible for any one to predict beforehand what the result would be of the appointment of a conciliator of ability, personality and commanding position, who would be able to approach the two parties. For my part, I leave this matter with the regretful feeling that we are face to face with a struggle which has gone on for a great many
  534
  years, which has resulted in what seems to me to be a distorted view of the facts, and which leaves a condition of things which demands strong, determined and definite steps. These steps mean the pursuance of the policy of the Act of 1896, regardless of the question whether it would succeed or fail. Far better it should fail, far better that this House should fail after it had done its best to terminate this lamentable dispute, than that we should sit here confessing our impotence. Far better it should fail than that we should be in the position we are to-day. I feel that if this House resists this Motion, and fails to express its opinion of what ought to be done, it will be in a position no better than that of the Ministry itself.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I was for many years, in the capacity of trustee, responsible for the employment of 2,000men in a colliery. As the sole surviving trustee the responsibility which falls upon Lord Penrhyn fell upon my shoulders, and I do not hesitate to say that Lord Penrhyn, throughout all these proceedings, has conducted himself like a generous and just man, anxious to do justice all round. Some reference has been made to the fact that the Board of Trade in the year 1896 pursued a different course from that which has been pursued this year. I say that the Board of Trade in 1896 made a huge blunder. Attempts were made to approve the interference of a public Department in a dispute when it was perfectly well known that one of the parties to the dispute strongly objected to the interference. On that occasion the Board of Trade was further handicapped by the fact that it relied largely on a labour correspondent's report. It was proved that the labour correspondent, who was supposed to impartially represent to the Board of Trade what was going on at Bethesda, was an ardent supporter of trades unions, who had, as he himself said, taken the chair at a meeting in connection with the strike, and had said his sympathies were entirely with the men. That was, I think, a great public scandal; that a man who held an official position, and had to make an official report to the Board of Trade should be an avowed partisan, and engaged in carrying on an agitation on behalf of one particular branch. What

  535
  is Lord Penrhyn's objection? Some talk about it as an objection to all combination of the men. It is nothing of the kind. He objects to the committee because the committee avowedly in their own minutes declare their intention of driving out of the employment of Lord Penrhyn every man who has not seen eye to eye with themselves. That is to say, they are avowedly going to hunt out every man who has been loyal to his employer. I think it is a scandal that men who have conducted themselves in such a manner should be aided and abetted by the Opposition in an endeavour to get back those positions which they used so tyrannically before. They say themselves in their minutes that it is resolved to universaly exact payment to the union. They are merely touts for the union fund, and that is the impartial committee, a committee representing union and non-union men! They are mere touts for collecting funds for the strike. They also resolved to obtain before the next committee meeting the names of all those who refused to pay the union subscriptions. To ask Lord Penrhyn, after all his experience of the mischief which this committee has brought about, to allow it to be reappointed is a monstrous proposition. It may be said that this committee might put the views of the men in a sentence to Lord Penrhyn, but they passed a resolution, so recently as 1879, which has never been repealed—and to give these men their due they do not deny that their real aim is to reconstitute this committee—in which they resolved that the bad workmen who had got into a better bargain by being loyal to their employer during the strike were to be removed back to their own class. It is like saying that a sergeant in the Army, having been promoted by his superiors because he did not agree with the opinions of a strike committee, should be reduced to the ranks. The result of that to those men would be less pay and rougher work. They also resolved that if the new men who came in after the strike were in good bargains and some of the old men had not been replaced, that the new men should be removed to make room for the old. I never heard of a more monstrous interference with labour in my life. Sir, if Lord Penrhyn was inclined to listen
  536
  for a moment to such a scandalous suggestions he would receive the reprobation of all men. So far from following the right hon. Gentleman in saying that the President of the Board of Trade ought to have repeated the mistake which had been made by his predecessor years ago, I say I think he has done more wisely in avoiding placing himself in a very false position. The right hon. Gentleman has avoided all matters of a personal character, but he cannot get away from the fact that if Lord Penrhyn allowed the reconstitution of this committee to interfere in his business, he might as well go to the Bankruptcy Court. It has already done an immense amount of harm and it would be dangerous to restore it.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: It is always refreshing to have the intervention of the hon. Gentleman opposite in our debates. We are always sure to get the history, ancient history, of the question. He never minces matters. He told us something that happened, as he says, so recently as 1879. If he will allow me to say so, he has not moved with the times.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I said the resolution was passed in 1879 and was never rescinded.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I do not wish to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, but he used the expression "so recently as 1879." 1879 cannot be described as very recent in trades union affairs in this country. The right hon. Gentleman also gave a high certificate to Lord Penrhyn's personal character. He seemed prejudiced against trades unions, and treated us with the old familiar phrases with regard to agitators which are rather ancient and threadbare arguments at this time of day. I am not going to follow any hon. Member into the details of this dispute, there are many about me who are much better acquainted with them than I am, but I entirely associate myself with the hon. and learned Member for Haddington. We want more light on this matter. The very fact that power has been given to the Board of Trade to investigate and report on matters of this kind is an argument in

  537
  favour of this Motion. We want more knowledge of the details. What is the real issue between Lord Penrhyn and the men now it has been so narrowed by the most commendable exertions of Sir Edward Clarke to bring the thing to a conclusion?
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: An interference which was entirely unauthorised and officious.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I am sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that. Sir Edward Clarke did his best to bring a most deplorable struggle to an end. What is the real issue? The real issue between Lord Penrhyn and the men is whether the men shall have a right of combination. [Cries of "No!"] I speak as an employer of labour, and know what combination is. The issue is whether these men should have the free right of combination, and whether they should be able to present their cases through persons in whom they have confidence. A sentence has been read from a letter of Lord Penrhyn's saying he would not recognise the committee. I entered commercial life with a very strong prejudice indeed against trades unions, but I was slowly and surely convinced as to their utility, and I think now there is no surer means of maintaining peace and concord than a strong trades union. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us in his Budget speech that although there had been friction recently there had been very few trade disputes, because the men have been organised, and have been able to meet in an authoritative manner their employers and settle matters in dispute. On the last occasion when this matter was before the House, I remember a striking sentence that was read by the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire; it was used by the Chairman of the Standing Joint Committee of the Carnarvonshire County Council.
  "With an experience of thirty-three years he would by meeting the men in friendly intercourse have settled the point at issue in half an hour."
  "That is what we want—the disposition to do that. So long as Lord Penrhyn refuses to recognise the principle of combination he is standing in the way of a settlement. There can be no question about that. I would undertake to say that if I were conducting a
  538
  factory, or a railway, or any other industrial concern, I could clip the wings of any committee that was appointed and render their efforts null and void. I am afraid that what is at the bottom of this is some misconception as to the real rights of property. That is a very delicate matter. I am all for individual ownership of property. You cannot do without the incentive which individual ownership gives. But let us remember the words of Mr. Drummond, the only Englishman who ever governed Ireland successfully, that "property has its duties as well as its rights." I believe that property was made for man, not man for property. I do not think that men come into the world to delve for gold, coal, slates, or what not; I believe that these commodities were made by Providence and placed in the ground for our use, but they are to be got from the bowels of the earth always with regard to the rights of humanity. Humanity comes first. What is Lord Penrhyn's attitude towards the public? Nothing the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has said displaces that cogent sentence quoted by my right hon. friend the Member for East Fife—
  "I will not tolerate an official letter from the Board of Trade or outside interference in my private property."
  and nothing has displaced that very remarkable sentence which no doubt was written on the instructions of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply—
  "That the Board of Trade could not recognise for a single moment that it was his private property."
  We are dealing now not with the President of the Board of Trade, but with the Government. This is a vote of censure, proposed with all due formality, on the Government. The Cabinet in its collective capacity is responsible. I am strongly of opinion that the case has been made out. I think the First Lord of the Treasury will no longer maintain that this is a matter of mere local interest. It goes far deeper than that. The principles involved will not be laid to rest for many a day. No one is doing a more dangerous thing than Lord Penrhyn in raising the questions here involved. It is a most serious and grave matter. I hold

  539
  that we should not be doing our duty if, when these circumstances have arisen, and Parliament has given this power to a Government Department, we did not express in the strongest and clearest terms our disapprobation of that Government Department for not having done their best to bring to an end the present condition of things.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: As I listened to the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite I could not help wondering by what magic the Members of the Opposition had laid the spirits of those at whose shrines the Liberal Party were wont to worship. What has become of the shades of all the political economists of the Manchester school? What a bonfire has been made of all their once sacred works in order that the right hon. Gentleman might warm his hands before taking up his pen to indite the resolution which he to-night asks us to accept! I have always thought that the principle and the object of the Manchester School was to restrict to the utmost degree Government interference with any industry. What has become of those views which used to be regarded as the purest type of Liberal orthodoxy? This resolution is merely a political manœuvre of the most transparent character, designed partly to occupy a little time, and partly to catch a few stray Socialist votes for a party which stands sadly in need of them. I must say that the right hon. Gentleman, in associating himself with this Resolution, is seeking to turn the work of Parliament and of the Government—to use the words of a great writer, recently a Member of this House
  "Into something little better than a competition of class bribery, and thus lower the tone of public life and the character and influence of public men."
  I am at one with hon. Members opposite is deploring the continuance of this industrial dispute, but I part company with them on the Resolution. So far as it is a vote of censure on the Government for not putting in force the law of the land I shall leave the matter to be dealt with by the Ministers themselves. I turn to the circumstances of the case, which are
  540
  declared to be so grave as to justify the Motion before the House, and I ask the House to consider what is the state of affairs at Bethesda with which the Government is called upon drastically to deal. What is the cause of that condition of affairs? What is there in the conduct of Lord Penrhyn as an employer in relation to his men to justify this proposed arbitrary intervention between employer and employed? My object is to ensure, as far as possible, that Members shall be in possession of the true facts before they vote on the question. The right hon. Gentleman opposite is a master of phrases, and I noticed he was very careful to avoid the use of such words as "tyrant," "tyranny," "oppressor," and so forth, but all those words have been heaped on Lord Penrhyn in the past, both in this House and on hundreds of platforms in the country, and even in the pulpits of the land. He has been the object of the most violent denunciation and abusive obloquy. But although the right hon. Gentleman did not use those words, I think he intended to convey the impression that Lord Penrhyn as an employer of labour was harsh and tyrannical. That, however, is the very issue that was tried a short time ago in the courts of law. Lord Penrhyn recently brought an action for libel, which action was tried before the Lord Chief Justice and a special jury in London, so that it was absolutely independent of the parties to the dispute and of local circumstances. The principal counsel for the defence was the hon. and learned Member for South Shields, and I am sure the defendant could not have had a more brilliant advocate. The hon. and learned Member made a speech, as violent as it was eloquent, in support of the plea of justification, and he defined the whole issue as being that of the conduct of Lord Penrhyn as an employer merely, and not as to his character in any other relation whatever. The issue which the hon. and learned Member invited the jury to consider was whether or not Lord Penrhyn was a tyrant. He said—
  "I come back again to the question, what is the subject of the libel? What is at the foundation and bottom of it? It is a charge against Lord Penrhyn that he was hard, harsh,

  541
  oppressive, and unjust, in some of his most important relations with the men employed at his quarry. That is the charge that is called tyrannical. He is called a tyrant in relation to them."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Lord Chief Justice declined to accept that issue.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I have quoted the words of the hon. and learned Member in which he laid that issue before the jury, and what did the jury say? They decided that the charge of being hard, harsh, oppressive, and unjust, was untrue, in fact, that it was disproved by the evidence; they rejected the contention that the allegations were made honestly and without malice; they found a verdict for Lord Penrhyn, and awarded him the substantial damages of £500. After that verdict I think the denunciation of Lord Penrhyn in this House ought to cease. I will go further. I now challenge any hon. Member to stand up and name one single example of hardness, harshness, or injustice on the part of Lord Penrhyn? That is a bold challenge to make after Lord Penrhyn's conduct has been the subject of severe criticism for several years past in the country and of five days examination in a court of law. What is the state of affairs at Bethesda? What is the state of affairs at present? The right hon. Gentleman drew a picturesque description which would be applicable to any strike and to any circumstances and place. In 1896 there was a strike, after eleven years of prosperity which was shared alike by the employers and the men. During that time Lord Penrhyn raised the wages of the men three times, and in 1897 that strike was subjected to a debate in this House. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the result of that debate was that the strike came to an end, but it was nothing of the kind. This House refused to intervene, and consequently the strike came to an end in the only way in which it ought to come to an end, and that was by direct amicable agreement between the parties. Let me deal with what, after all, is the crux of the whole question. I think hon. Members who know any thing about the facts of this case will ask what is really Lord Penrhyn's character as an employer. Is it true that he has resisted the right of combination? The
  542
  last speaker insisted that Lord Penrhyn had resisted the right of combination amongst his men. Is it true that Lord Penrhyn resists trades unions? If he were really resisting the right of combination, there are a large number of hon. Members of this House who would think him unreasonable and unjust, and I should be amongst them. I regard the right and power of labour to combine as absolutely essential to the safety of labour, because unless they have such right and power, whether they exercise it or not labour would become dangerously at the mercy of capital. Not that I suggest that capital and labour are hostile and opposed to each other. I suggest nothing of the kind, for they are absolutely dependent the one upon the other, and the man who would seek to set them at variance is the enemy of both. I hold, therefore, that the right to combine is absolutely essential to the safety of labour. But that question is not at issue. If that is so, it may be asked why Lord Penrhyn objects to a committee. That is the real crux and difficulty of the whole matter. It is suggested by the right hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion that the committee is only a vehicle and medium for the forwarding of grievances, and that it is the means of preventing unfounded grievances being put before the employer. The hon. Member opposite spoke of it as working well. I may explain that the word "committee" means something quite different in Bethesda than here. This is not a question of committee, and it is not a trades union committee. If they would call it a trades union committee there would be no difficulty. But this is a quarry committee, and it claims to represent all the men in the quarry. There are union and non-union men in that quarry working side by side, and the non-union men, I am sure the House will agree, are entitled to protection as well as the others. There was a committee abolished in 1885, which existed for eleven years, and during that time it claimed to represent all the men in the quarry, union and non-union alike. It had been agreed that the committee should be the sole means of forwarding the complaints to the managers, and it

  543
  was presumed that they would forward complaints impartially from all the men in the quarries. The resolution they passed on the 2nd of December, 1874, was as follows:—
  "That no complaint be received except from one who is a member of the union."
  This committee, which claims to represent the whole of the men really only represented the union men, and it was an instrument for forcing non-union men to join the union. Under that committee a non-union man could not for ward his complaint to his employer, however just that complaint might be. I hold that every man should have the right to forward a complaint to his employer, and that is the position of Lord Penrhyn to-day. To show that this committee was a mere instrument of the trades union to force the non-union men to join I will quote the following resolutions passed by the Committee:—
  "Resolved to exhort regular and unfailing payment to the union."
  "Resolved that the union money be received every Thursday evening after the payment in the quarry."
  "Resolved to obtain for the next committee meeting the names of those who refuse to pay the union and that the representative adopt the most secret method for doing so."
  "Resolved to adhere to the union rules in the case of Griffith Jones."
  "Resolved to urge the partners to influence the 'journeymen' to pay the union and appoint two men to be with each book to interview those who do not pay."
  This committee claimed to represent all the men in the quarry, and as a matter of fact it only represented the union men and refused to allow the complaints of the non-union men to be forwarded to the employers. The union brought pressure to bear upon those men who did not pay, and on those grounds alone Lord Penrhyn would be justified in abolishing the committee, as he did in the year 1885. For eleven years after that the quarry worked well both for employers and employed alike. The quarry committee interfered with the management to such an extent, and so disastrously that, in the first place, it was said that practically the quarry was managed by the committee and not the owner. The fact was that this magnificent property and this splendid industry was reduced absolutely to the verge of bankruptcy. The right hon. Gentleman said that in 1885 Lord
  544
  Penrhyn succeeded in abolishing the quarry committee. But it is not correct. In 1885, the late Lord Penrhyn was the owner, and he was over eighty years of age, and quite unfitted to deal with the difficulties of the situation, and the men took full advantage of his infirmity. The quarry was galloping along to ruin, and to prevent it going bankrupt Lord Penrhyn called in his son, the present owner, to manage the quarry.
  MR. BELL: I should like the hon. Member to give us some example of interference with the management of the quarry.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I will give some instances. In the first place they interfered with the letting of bargains. They resolved to revise the quarry rules. I think hon. Members will agree that the rules of the quarry are matters for the managers to determine. [An HON MEMBER: "No, no."] I will give another example. They passed a resolution interfering with the salaries paid to the officials of the quarry. The committee claimed that the salaries of the officials were too high and they objected. I will give one more example. They suggested that when a man had three months holiday when he came back again he should have his bargain waiting for him. Was it reasonable that any man should attempt to manage any business, whether a quarry or a large works, employing 2,000 or 3.000 men and allow a man to take three months holiday and find his work waiting for him when he came back? I claim that I have shown that the quarry committee did interfere with the management and also with the liberty of the non-union men. I claim that Lord Penrhyn was justified in 1885 in abolishing the quarry committee, and I claim that he is justified to-day in saying that nothing would now induce him to allow that committee to be restored. That is the committee which the strikers are now trying to re-establish in its old position and power, and that is what Lord Penrhyn will never consent to recognise. I should like to read Lord Penrhvn's own evidence given at the recent trial. At the end of one day and a half in the

  545
  witness box, he was asked the following questions—
  "906. The Lord Chief Justice: After all your experience would you just state to the jury, without any question from me, what is the position or action of the committee to which you object, because it is important with regard to many questions put to you by Mr. Robson?
  "Lord Penrhyn: What I object to very much is their claiming to speak for the whole body of men, when they do not represent the whole body of men—that is the first point. I felt that the non-unionist men were placed at a very great disadvantage in consequence of the line of the union men, and I felt it was my duty as an employer of labour to stand up for the rights of free labour, and I have done my best in that way.
  "907. The Lord Chief Justice: Does that feeling exist, not only in 1885, but right up to the present time?—Yes right up to the present time.
  "907. The Lord Chief Justice: Is there anything else in connection with what you describe as the 'quarry committee' which you object to, and which you want to mention to the jury, or is that simply your whole statement?
  "Lord Penrhyn: I do not think there is anything else, my lord. If I might be allowed to say one word it is this: that no such body as the quarry committee is recognised or tolerated in any of the other large slate quarries in North Wales.
  "The Lord Chief Justice: I understood that to be quite clear."
  Let me just quote the Lord Chief Justice. In his direction to the jury he said:
  "Then finally when I asked him at the end of his evidence, he said: 'I objected to the quarry committee because I was convinced, and still am, that it did not fairly represent the non-unionists, and I felt it my duty as an employer of labour to protect the freedom of labour. Now Mr. Parry knows as much about this quarry, probably, as anybody living. He has been secretary of these various organisations for the period of something like thirty years; he is in Court and hears Lord Penrhyn give that evidence; not only is no question put in cross-examination to Lord Penrhyn but Mr. Parry goes in and out of the box without suggesting for a moment that Lord Penrhyn had formed a wrong conclusion."
  They interfered to the detriment and injury of the non-union men, with the result, as I say, that the quarry was nearly reduced to bankruptcy. The point to which I draw attention is this. It will be remembered that in 1900 the men left their work without giving any notice or reason, and although they have been repeatedly invited to give a reason or to put forward a grievance they have never done so. This much is clear: that this dispute is not concerned
  546
  with the question of wages. It is not concerned with the question of hours of labour, or the question of the recognition of the trades union. It is not concerned with the question of voluntary combination among the men, or any section of the men, so long as no section attempts to coerce another. The hon. and learned Member for Haddington quoted certain words used by Mr. Young as the manager of these works. He quoted Mr. Young as having said before the Royal Commission that he declined absolutely to have any dealings with the union. Mr. Young having had his attention called to that at an interview at some subsequent date said it was not according to the evidence to be found in the Blue-book. What Mr. Young said was that they declined absolutely to recognise the union in any way, but that they did not interfere with the men for being in the union. He said—
  "We take not the slightest notice either of politics or anything else. Every man is treated simply as a working man."
  When asked "Without reference to his being a unionist or not?" he replied—
  "Perfectly impartial as to being a unionist or not."
  I think the hon. Member for Haddington quite unintentionally misrepresented Mr. Young, and I only quote the evidence in justice to him. The position of Lord Penrhyn is that he insists on the right of every workman to address any complaint to the manager; he insists on his right to control the working of the quarries, and he refuses to dismiss 1,000 loyal, contented and satisfactory workmen, who are to-day employed by him in the quarry.
  Now we are told that the Government ought to jump in and be guilty of two gross acts of injustice—one to the men and the other to the employer. I think such an interference, with the results it would entail, would have the effect of destroying all confidence in the employment of capital, and all security for the freedom of labour in every industry in the country. I have not time to deal with all the points to which I would like to refer, but I wish to say a word in regard to Lord Penrhyn's refusal to accept arbitration. Well, I admit fully, frankly, and unreservedly,

  547
  the good intentions on the part of Sir Edward Clarke, but he entered on the negotiations without the knowledge of, or authority from Lord Penrhyn. There are certain matters on which Lord Penrhyn will accept the arbitration of no man. The first is as to the restoration of the quarry committee, and the second is the re-admission of all the men now on strike and the necessary removal or dismissal of those men who are now working. The terms submitted to Sir Edward Clarke and forwarded by him to Lord Penrhyn were absolutely impossible on that point and upon several others. What is Lord Penrhyn's attitude to-day in relation to the men on strike. He says—
  "My quarry is open to all who apply for work—unionist or non-unionist alike. I never have done, and I do not intend to do, anything to prevent my employees from becoming members of the union if they wish to do so. All that I stipulate is, that those men who do not wish to do so should be left free to exercise their own judgment without coercion or intimidation. The terms and. conditions of labour at my quarry are as fair, and the wages as good as, if not better than, those of any quarry in North Wales. A thousand men and boys are working, and are perfectly happy and contented, and, until the requisite number is arrived at, I am read to admit into the quarry any suitable man who will work there contentedly."
  There is another very important question—What are the relations prevailing between Lord Penrhyn and the 1,000 men now working for him? The allegation is that Lord Penrhyn is a harsh employer of labour. Let me not give to the House my opinion. I will quote what is said to Lord Penrhyn by the 1,000 men now working for him. The language is plain and clear, and it is true. They unanimously voted this resolution and forwarded it to him—
  "We, the workmen in the Penrhyn Quarry, in mass-meeting assembled, beg to be allowed hereby to offer to your Lordship our respectful and cordial congratulations on the happy result of the recent trial. It is unnecessary to say that we, your Lordship's workmen, the great mass of whom have never worked under anybody else, and many of whom have been employed in the quarry for over fifty years, needed no verdict of a jury to demonstrate your Lordship's high personal honour, your open-handed generosity, and unswerving justice and fairness to all alike as an employer of labour, and your Lordship's noble munificence and kindly sympathy as a neighbour and friend to those in distress. All this we have known well, and felt with pride and gratitude all the years along. The verdict of the jury could change nothing. But it is to as a source of
  548
  unmingled joy that, as a result of the trial heard before the Lord Chief Justice of England in the full publicity of the High Court, the outside public will henceforth know all these things as we do, and feel, therefore, as we feel, the enormity of the wrong done to your Lordship for months together. We earnestly hope that the future may be brighter and happier, and that your Lordship may be long spared to enjoy it."
  This is the view of the 1,000 men now in employment, by which they are earning an average of 5s. 8d. a day, and many of them between 10s. and 11s. Peace and prosperity prevail, and to disturb this condition of things and to destroy these relations and dispossess these men the Government are called upon to invoke some undefined power or receive the censure of a momentarily united Opposition. Why are these men who are working to be dispossessed of their work and their homes? Why should they be dispossessed in order that agitators may make a vicarious atonement to their victims? The right hon. Gentleman can discard when it suits him all the principles of political economy, but he cannot get over the fundamental principle in the laws of mechanics that where a space is filled by one body you cannot put in another without dispossessing that which is already there. Agitators have striven to set men against men and have driven workmen from good work to starvation for all they cared, and these allies right hon. Gentlemen are adopting for the purpose of uniting the forces and restoring the fortunes of the great Liberal Party.
  And it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  BETHESDA (INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE).
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [27th April], "That, in view of the grave social and public interests involved in the continuance of the industrial dispute at Bethesda, this House condemns the inaction of His Majesty's Government, and declares its opinion that prompt intervention on their part is imperative to arrive at a just and effectual settlement."—(Mr. Asquith.)
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: This debate has at least proved that there is a great lack of information as to the rights and wrongs and facts of this controversy. I have listened to the President of the Board of Trade, and, although I was not very much impressed by his speech, I understood the chief ground for his refusal to intervene was that there was no great prospect of success. I heard the same phrase with regard to the case of Whitaker Wright. I can only say that if the right hon. Gentleman limits the action of the Board of Trade to those cases in which they are likely to be successful, he limits the action of his Department very much indeed. The whole matter comes to this, that Lord Penrhyn is a very obstinate man. One hon. Gentleman said he was out-of-date, but, however that may be, he has some feudal notions in his head as to how the owner of a business ought to conduct it. Lord Penrhyn said some time ago—
  "I possess the right to dismiss from my quarry any of my men without giving any reason."
  Lord Penrhyn may own a quarry, but he does not own the men, and that is a fact he does not always bear in mind. The Conciliation Act is fairly clear on this matter, because in the second section it gives the Board of Trade a right to interfere if it thinks fit. The President of the Board of Trade is the person who is to be the judge of the fitness, I do not mean of his own capacity, but of his Department, to interfere. Now, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think it was no use to intervene in this business unless both the employer and the employed asked him to do so, hut the Act, in Sub-section 2, clearly provides that the Board might intervene if either the employer or employed asked for intervention. That seems to show that, on the application of any party to the dispute, the Board of Trade ought to intervene. So that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, if it comes to anything, comes to this, that, as the employer is an obstinate man it is no use to intervene at all; but it was just in order to meet cases of this sort that this Act was passed. The President of the Board of Trade always regards the
  550
  helplessness of his own Department, and is willing to limit the action of that Department as much as possible. And then, perhaps, he thinks that Lord Penrhyn is a badger with whom he cannot cope, and he thought that if he once began to intervene in cases like this he would always have to interfere, and the contemplation of this huge burden of work on his already overburdened shoulders compelled him to say that he would not place it upon his Department. Now, the hon. Member opposite has not rightly stated the facts in this case. He has not had the facts supplied to him on the highest authority, and I feel certain that I shall convince the House that he is not quite well-informed on certain matters that he gave to the House in the course of his speech.
  The first, and one of the most important points of this case, is this—Whether the men are or are not anxious to restore what was called the old quarry committee. The hon. Member said that under the old régime there was a Quarry Commitee, but I would point out that under the old régime, 1874 to 1885—there was not a single strike, and that under the old régime the estate agent of the late Lord Penrhyn himself was the ultimate referee of all matters brought up by the committee. That could not do much harm. The Court of Appeal was the estate agent of Lord Penrhyn himself. Now just let me tell the House, if I may, what the men are asking for at this stage. The hon. Member went back to 1874 for some of his facts, but let us consider the situation as it is now. What do the-men want? Do they want any part in the management of the quarry? Do they want to dictate to the management as to what it shall do? Nothing of the kind. These men now ask for a representative body of the workmen of their own selection to consider and represent grievances. This body is to have the power to appoint an executive committee which is to act for that purpose. They are asking for that committee to consider grievances, and even the workmen in the employ of a peer might consider the grievances of their fellows. To represent

  551
  them is a different matter, but it would not be too much to say that under certain circumstances they might represent the grievances of their fellows. That is the committee they are asking for, and I submit to this House that that is a legitimate end. To consider the grievances and to represent them. Now the hon. Member for Macclesfield said that the men wanted three months' holiday. I should like to ask him what is his authority for saying that the men ever asked for three months' holiday.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: What I quoted was an assertion on the part of the committee, as it existed from 1874 to 1885, that the men ought to have that right.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Will the hon. Member give me the date? I have, since his speech, spoken to a man who has worked in this quarry for fifty years, and on his authority I say my hon. friend is misinformed. He is equally misinformed when he says the men have ever interfered with the official salaries. The point we have to consider is whether the men were justified in 1900 in the action they took. One cause of the lock-out, or strike, in 1900 is fairly deep: seated in that locality. The President of the Board of Trade says this is simply a local affair; he is only able to deal with Imperial questions. But let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that, however local the case may be, justice is the same everywhere. If there is a large industrial unrest, in which he was justified in intervening on that ground, he is equally justified in intervening here. Twelve hundred houses empty—1,400 men gone away from the district. If he knew the men of Bethesda he would not say it was a mere local matter. It is a matter which deserves that he should do something to mitigate the hardships of these unfortunate men. Now one of the terms of the settlement of 1897 which Lord Penrhyn, or Mr. Young on his behalf, agreed with the men was—that they should take back the men. There were twenty-five men who had been on strike not taken back. That was a very great breach of the agreement. I think it was the hon. Member for St. Albans who gave us a definition of roguery
  552
  and tyranny, and although those are hard words you cannot be surprised if, when two or three thousand men see twenty-five men prevented from going back to their employment they should be somewhat disturbed. Mr. Young told Mr. Williams that they would take all the men back, and asked Mr. Williams to come and see him in six months and tell him if they had not been taken back. In six months Mr. Williams went to Mr. Young and told him that twenty-five men were not taken back, and then he was told that some were old and inefficient and some had been convicted of poaching—one of the greatest offences under the law in some parts of the country, and were therefore not fit to be taken back into the quarry. A curious thing is that some of these men who were old and inefficient men have become more efficient since, although they have not got younger. I do not know why, but I know that under the new régime, when the strikers were on strike, these people were taken back to the quarry. Now that was not the only thing. These men wanted, during the dinner hour, a right to conversation, if not meeting. Now Mr. Young takes a strong view on this matter. He thinks that the men should either work, or eat, or sleep. Those are his own words. Now they were allowed to meet during their dinner hour these strikers who had gone back in order to dispossess the old men, but one of the grievances in the old time was that they were not allowed to meet at that time.
  Another grievance of which they complained was one which I will term victimisation. This is a gentler word than those which the hon. Member for St. Albans used, though in the end it no doubt means the same thing. When Lord Penrhyn came into possession in 1885 he said any deputation that came to him must be composed of unionists and non-unionists. The first deputation which went to him was composed of six men, three of each, But the three unionists had notice of suspension, while the three non-unionists served on the deputation with the greatest composure without being suspended. That alarmed the quarry-men. They saw it put a premium on non-unionists in the quarry. Something has been said by the hon. Member for Macclesfield about Lord Penrhyn's attitude towards unionists

  553
  and non-unionists and he read a letter upon that subject. I asked him to read three or four lines further, and if he had done so he would have found that Air. Young to-day says that they will not recognise the union in any way whatever. This is the difference between unionists and non-unionists—the non-unionist thinks that union is not strength but weakness; the unionists think they should have a committee to represent them, while the non-unionists require nothing of the kind. That is the policy of victimisation, and that sank very deeply into the minds of the quarrymen. The same thing happened in 1897, when four men were dismissed from the quarry, the first being Mr. W. E. Evans, the chairman of the committee. He had worked for Lord Penrhyn for fifty-two years. He was over seventy years of age, and one day he had notice to go and see Mr. Young at the office. This old man walked five miles to see Mr. Young, and when he got there Mr. Young's treatment of him was this—he did not ask for any explanation, he simply said to him, "You must remember this, I have a right to dismiss anybody I like in this quarry, and you are dismissed." Is it any wonder that there is some bitterness against the man who works in that way against the man who has served in the quarry for over fifty-two years? Robert Davis, another member of the committee, was dismissed, and no explanation given. And the two others were dismissed for slight breaches of the Explosives Act, which would have been taken no notice of but for the fact that they were members of the committee. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is the right way to conduct a business of this kind? He says he thinks the Board of Trade is the worst conciliator in the world.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, sir; what I said was that of all the conciliators to deal with Lord Penrhyn the conciliator of the Board of Trade was likely to be the least successful.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: He says in a case of this kind that of all possible conciliators the Board of Trade was the worst.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, the least likely to succeed.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Then they are surely the worst if they are least likely to succeed. I should not think the right hon. Gentleman would imagine that the worst were the most likely to succeed. What is the present position in the quarry? Many Members of the House heard the hon. Member opposite read that glorious resolution which he read. It has rarely been my lot to hear such a resolution read in this House. These workmen must indeed be very ill men when they can turn round in the manner in which they have after such a resolution as that. Lord Penrhyn has a very high opinion of his workmen, because when he is asked to allow an interpreter and shorthand writer for the use of his workmen he turns round and says he can take one from among the workmen themselves. I do not know who drafted that resolution, or whether it was inspired, but these men ought indeed to be happy men. Some of them have been shut out of the quarry for fifteen years, and they have now got back. Some of them have been convicted of offences which were a bar to their ever being taken back into the quarry. Now it is said, let them all come in, provided they are not convicted of trades unionism. Public meetings in the dinner hour are allowed, and the committee—we have heard a good deal about the committee, but there is a committee in the quarry now—of, I do not call them blacklegs, but men who have gone in during the strike. The men are now ready to go back under the 1889 settlement. There is only one point for which they stand out. They think that when the labourers have grievances the labourers should be allowed to send representatives to explain their grievances. All the men ask is this, that men in that position should be able to have some authority to speak for them. Is not that a reasonable thing? These men, without exception, are monoglot Welshmen. On one occasion when a deputation came to Mr. Young there was an interpreter, but he was the defendant against whom they had appealed. In that case there were the labourers, who only spoke Welsh, and the interpreter, the man against whom they were appealing, had to interpret the charge against himself. The men have done their best to settle and end this dispute. They have offered to

  555
  have the matter referred to the Prime Minister, to Lord Rosebery, to the Colonial Secretary, or to any man who was denominated. That shows the fairness of their case. The hon. Member for Macclesfield, in the course of his speech, said, in regard to Sir Edward Clarke's settlement, that the moment Lord Penrhyn heard of the affair going on he at once put a stop to it.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: No; I said he protested.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: What is the plain state of the matter? It is that the hon. Member has either made a serious charge against Sir Edward Clarke, which he will adhere to, or which, on further consideration, he will, and I think he will, withdraw. Here is a letter dated on the 31st of March from Sir Edward Clarke to Mr. Williams with whom he carries on the negotiations for a settlement.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I have seen no correspondence except between Sir Edward Clarke and Lord Penrhyn.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Possibly that is so. If the hon. Member had, he would not have made the statement he did. The hon. Member's statement is that the moment Lord Penrhyn knew that there was anything on foot he at once protested. This is what Sir Edward Clarke said to Mr. Williams—
  "Dear Williams,—I communicated to Lord Penrhyn the memorandum of terms suggested at the basis of agreement, and your supplementary letter, and I have had the opportunity of explaining and discussing them with him both personally and in writing. He has consulted and is consulting others, and until he has had time to consider their opinions matters must be left at a standstill."
  Was there ever a more gross misrepresentation of the facts of the case? Let me at once say that I acquit the hon. Member of any intention of misrepresentation.
  Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: Oh, if I had had that I should have made precisely the same statement.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHS: If that is so, I will leave the hon. Member and Sir
  556
  Edward Clarke to settle their own differences.
  Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: The intervention was wholly unauthorised.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHS: That is not the point. The point is that Sir Edward Clarke opened up negotiations with Lord Penrhyn, and if Lord Penrhyn had acted as the hon. Member said he acted he would have at once said to Sir Edward Clarke, "I am extremely sorry that you have opened communications with the men, as I have made up my mind not to have anything to do with them." Instead of which Sir Edward Clarke says, "He has consulted, and is consulting others. "It would be extremely interesting to know who the others are, and then we might know why this matter has not been settled. Lord Penrhyn, I submit, in this matter is entirely wrong, and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman has it in his power to act as a conciliator in this matter. He has not done so, however, and the dispute has gone on for three years. I do not know whether he would have succeeded or not, but I say that it was his duty to attempt to succeed. He ought to have grappled with this question. He saw an industrial dispute going on for all this time, and he ought to have done his best to have made terms with one side or the other, and because he has failed to do so I shall certainly support the Motion.
  SIR JOHN GORST: The last speaker who addressed the House has given a very interesting account which has, however, not decided the dispute, because the House must observe that there are two statements which have been made, in which there are not only controversies as to the facts, but disagreement as to the point of dispute. In the very few remarks I shall make, I do not intend to speak either as an advocate of Lord Penrhyn or of the quarrymen, though perhaps, as I once, years ago, enjoyed the hospitality of the quarrymen of Bethesda, I may be allowed to express my deep sympathy with the ruin and misery that has overtaken that once prosperous place. In my view, this is not a local but a national question.

  557
  National, not so much on account of the number of men employed, as on account of the very important public question which these disputes raise. So far as may be on one side or the other, I am content myself to accept the position taken up by the hon. Member for Glamorgan. The facts that are brought before the House obviously show that somebody is very greatly to blame. But I go further, and say that a national public Department of State, which represents the great bulk of the people, has not only the right to say that somebody is greatly to blame, but also the right, if they can, to find out who that somebody is, and to place the blame upon the proper person, whether it be Lord Penrhyn, or his agent, or the quarrymen. Therefore the House will apprehend that I profoundly agree with the speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Haddington, who claimed that in discussing a question of this kind the House of Commons ought to have before them, not merely the statements of advocates, however able and honest their statements might be, but they ought to also have before them the facts ascertained by some public authority, and what is more, some independent public authority, upon which this House could discuss matters, and upon which this House and public opinion could make up its mind as to the particular party who is to blame. The same sentiment was expressed by several hon. Members who addressed the House on the subject, namely, that we are in the dark. The last two speeches show us how in the dark we are when we find there are two representations of the issue which is before us. We ought to have a public, official, vouched-for, statement of facts on which to form an opinion. If it is true that the President of the Board of Trade has statutory power to make such an inquiry, and to lay such facts before the House, and that he has neglected to use those powers, then I should say that he deserved the censure of Parliament. But has he got such powers? I think his answer was complete upon that point. He first of all represented that an offer of conciliation by the Board of Trade had been rejected by Lord Penrhyn; about that there could not be any doubt what-ever. Now, the offer of conciliation having been rejected, has the Board of Trade power to make proper and efficient inquiry? It is quite true that the Act
  558
  of Parliament says that the President of the Board of Trade may make an inquiry, but as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, he is not to make a report, and with regard to the making of an inquiry, he cannot summon witnesses, examine books, or take evidence. The real power to make an inquiry is withheld from him, and the power given by Sub-section (a), Section 2, of the Act] is a perfectly illusory and ludicrous power. How are they to appoint a conciliator f Supposing some great and high person of great attainments is appointed conciliator? What could he do? His power under this Act is bounded by this. He is appointed to act as conciliator, to inquire into the facts and circumstances in the dispute by communication with the parties. He has no power to summon witnesses, to take evidence, or to examine documents, and he has only power to communicate. That would leave him entirely incapable of serving any useful purposes in inquiring into the circumstances of the case.
  I thought the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade proved conclusively what had been said by the hon. Member for St. Albans,—namely, that the Conciliation Act as it stands is a sham. I do not agree with the hon. Member who says it would do no harm. These sham Acts do a very great deal of harm, because they induce people to believe that an Act for the purposes of arbitration has been passed, and it takes six or seven years for the people to find out that the whole thing is a sham. I confess that if the Rules of this House permitted such a thing as a vote of censure which would censure both the Front Benches, I should be much inclined to support it. I do not know whether the House has forgotten the history of this question, but I have not. As long ago as 1875, the last Government of Mr. Gladstone, every year a Bill of Conciliation was brought in, and every year it was denounced by the Opposition of that day as a sham. When it was last brought in it was denounced firstly by my humble self, and secondly by a distinguished gentleman who supported me, namely, the present Colonial Secretary, who also declared that it was a sham. And then what happened? When the next Government came in, the predecessors

  559
  of the present Government, they passed the present Conciliation Act, which was possibly even weaker and more feeble than that which they had denounced, and which the right hon. Member for Aberdeen had endeavoured to foist upon the House. Therefore, I am justified in saying that the blame must be equally shared by the two Front Benches. There are no means by which the award of an arbitrator can be enforced, and, therefore, compulsory arbitration has been very lightly and very generally discountenanced by all social reformers. But there is something a great deal short of compulsory arbitration, and that is the power for some Government authority to make inquiry and report. That was a thing perfectly possible to do. It is done in a great many countries, and the House of Commons having learned from this particular case how necessary it is that there should be facts on which the House could act, should strengthen the Conciliation Act by giving to the Board of Trade power not only to appoint a conciliator, but to call witnesses before him, to examine them upon oath, to inspect documents, and to make a report to the Board of Trade or to the House of Commons which would represent to the public what the true facts of the dispute were.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: It has been asserted by hon. Members that the quarry committee prevented free access to Lord Penrhyn of the non-union men. It was said that it only represented union men, and that then very properly Lord Penrhyn said he would never renew any agreement by which half his men would not have free access to him. If that was true I would agree to that view. I do not suppose any employer of labour in the kingdom would assent to anything which debarred half his men from bringing their complaints before him. But I would point out that nothing of the kind took place. What Lord Penrhyn wanted was that every man should approach him personally, or that he should get his next door neighbour who was a worker in the same class to do so. That was w hat he wanted to make every quarryman do. But half
  560
  the quarrymen wanted another system. They did not interfere with non-union men who were willing to come individually to make their grievances known, and then simply because the committee said they represented only their own men Lord Penrhyn said the non-union men were debarred from having access to him. That was a most absurd fallacy. The fact was that Lord Penrhyn hit high and hit low. He said "We will not recognise you as you do not represent all the men," while the committee said they would be only too glad to represent them if he would allow them to do so. They agreed to go outside their constituency and to act for anyone who submitted any complaint to them. The position of the committee was this, that the owner or his agent is saved the trouble of dealing with the 101 petty complaints that are placed before the committee. The late chairman of the committee said himself—
  "If I took up every complaint brought to me, by either union or non-union men, I should be doing nothing all day long but trotting to from the quarry office."
  And that being so they disposed themselves of nine-tenths of the complaints made to them. These representations were never persisted in by the quarry committee from that day to this, so that the quarry committee never decided on a strike. The mere making of representations to-the quarry manager cannot be said to be interfering with the management of the quarry. It is true that when the quarrymen's agent listens to a complaint which is unfounded, he tells the man that it is unfounded and it is one of the advantages of the quarry committee that nine-tenths of the complaints are stopped from going to the manager; but when a non-union man's complaint is stopped by the committee, that man goes himself to the management and complains that his representation has been refused to be brought forward by the union committee. Lord Penrhyn said to the committee "If you assume to act for the union men, you must and the union committee said "Certainly; we will act for the non-union act for the non-union men also;" men, and are willing to accept their complaints."

  561
  The other point urged by the hon. Member was that there was interference with the management of the quarry. I agree with the hon. Member that no employer of men in a quarry or a mine should allow himself to be dictated to by the men as to whether this rock or that seam should be worked. That should be left to the manager of the quarry or mine, but if he refuses to accept good advice offered by the men it is likely he will go into the bankruptcy court. When the hon. Gentleman was challenged to give an instance of interference in the management of the mine he gallantly rose to the challenge, but all that he could do was to quote the minutes of the committee, which minutes had, however, never been put into action. One minute set forth that the committee objected to a bargain being made with less than three men, but will the hon. Gentleman say that that minute was enforced in the quarry? Another minute referred to by the hon. Gentleman was one in which he said that the committee claimed to regulate the salary of the manager, but he did not show that minute had been attempted to be enforced. In fact, the minutes only represented a counsel of perfection, and it is idle to say that the present dispute depends in the slightest degree on any interference with the working of the quarry. Lord Penrhyn regards it as an interference with the working of the quarry when the men state that they consider that they are underpaid, but the public have been led to understand that the engineering working of the quarry is interfered with. That is not the case, and I venture to say that the popular feeling in England would back up the men in their desire to regulate the times of working and the rate of wages paid. I have no doubt that in some of the interviews, or in some letters written to the papers, some reference was made to the fact that the quarry was not paying, but has not that been said before of many other industries, and is it not a twisting of the argument to say that that is a claim to interfere with the salaries of the agents?
  Reference has been made to the Dinorwic property, and it was said that a
  562
  strike took place there in 1886. I knew all about that strike on account of that being my first year in this House, but I had nothing to do with the quarry committee. The right to the internal management of the quarry was never in dispute. That was a matter which I said that the workmen and the employer must decide for themselves. The only question in which the public were interested was where political and religious opinions were made a disqualification for employment; and the strike of 1886 was settled under an assurance that there certainly would be no religious or political disqualification, and that amicable arrangement has been kept to this day. The quarry agent, Mr. Vivian, an uncle of the present Lord Penrhyn, had the goodwill and the confidencee of the men, and when he retired from the management it was with the greatest regret of unionists and non unionists alike. What was the difference between Dinorwic and Bethesda? It was that the arrangement made in 1886 in the former was adhered to, whereas, the settlement of 1897 in the latter had not been adhered to in the spirit and in the letter. I do not know what the motives of Lord Penrhyn or Mr. Young may be, but I do know that the universal belief in the quarry is, that whoever represents the men on the quarry committee or a strike committee is a marked man, and will be dismissed sooner or later. Union men who committed the slightest offence were dismissed at once without the benefit of clergy, while non-union men committed these offences with impunity. Robert Davis and William Evans, who were on the strike committee, were dismissed, and when the manager was asked the reason for the dismissal, the only answer was that no reason would be given. When these strikes were first started the men had no one to represent them at all; they rose like a swarm of bees under a certain impulse. The action of Lord Penrhyn and Mr. Young struck at the very roots of combination, and it was idle for them to say that they were in favour of combination. I hold that these men are claiming only the most elementary right of free men, the right to select whom they please as their spokesman.

  563
  I do not say that Lord Penrhyn is tyrannical or harsh, but I do say that he adopts a policy which is harsh and tyrannical; and I object to a great nobleman, the owner of this whole quarry, who holds the livelihood of his workmen in his hands, saying to his men, "I will not allow you to elect an independent person to represent your case, or to speak for you, though you may elect a person who is under my thumb." I say that is not reasonable. I do not contend for a moment that Lord Penrhyn adopts that course for the purpose of crushing the men, but it is certain that he has dismissed men because he considered that they used arguments before him which he did not like. It is a practice which obtains in every colliery in the kingdom to have a paid agent of the men to represent their grievances. That is a benefit to both the employer and the workman. The universal experience of every colliery proprietor is that the paid agent of the colliers is more reasonable to deal with than the dissatisfied colliers themselves. I think it is the greatest mistake in the world for Lord Penrhyn to adopt the course he has taken, for he has brought the whole power of the trades unions against him, whereas, had he been willing to concede the simple measure of justice asked of him, the struggle would have been settled many months ago.
  MR. LAMBTON: My hon. friend has asked for concrete instances of interference by the quarry committee with the management of the quarry. I need only read the resolutions passed by the quarry committee in 1874 calling for the dismissal of certain men to make room for others who went out on strike. Surely that is interference with the management. The hon. Member said that these resolutions were not put in force. But why were they not? Because they had to deal with a man who refused to allow the quarry committee to put them in force. I find that after the strike of 1896, seventy-one of the leaders of the men were suspended. Of these sixty-seven were re-admitted, while of those not re-admitted, two had been discharged because they refused to comply with the Explosives Acts regula-
  564
  tions. Does not this very fact prove that Lord Penrhyn has not a "marked" man in his quarry?
  The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife, who moved the Resolution, was marked with a solemnity which seemed to be rather ecclesiastical. His performance affected me as I might be affected if I saw an Archbishop on the music-hall stage. But the country had not forgotten that the right hon. Gentleman filled the office of Home Secretary a few years ago, and is believed to be anticipating again occupying a high position in the Government of the country. His Majesty's Government fully appreciates the seriousness of the view put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, who to-night has demanded that the Board of Trade shall send down a conciliator. But if Lord Penrhyn is to be interfered with, there are only three courses open—compulsory arbitration, expropriation of Lord Penrhyn, or land nationalisation. The right hon. Gentleman says he will not have compulsory arbitration, and on the other hand Lord Penrhyn will never submit to arbitration the question of the quarry committees. The hon. Member for Carnarvon Burghs would not submit the differences between himself and the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich on education to arbitration, nor would the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife submit some of his differences with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs to arbitration. The party of the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution is apt to take a great interest in slates, but what is involved in this slate quarry dispute is not conciliation. It is compulsory arbitration and nothing else. If Lord Penrhyn must submit to a quarry committee, why should a ship's crew not dictate to the captain or engineer, or a committee of railway servants to a board of directors—a committee of agricultural labourers to the farmer that his cow should only be milked once a day, or a stable committee at Newmarket to the owner and trainer of a favourite that it shall not be ridden except by a member of the Anti-Gambling League? The country will take this matter seriously, and I do not believe that any person who has at

  565
  heart the interest of either employees of labour or of labour itself, will congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the attitude he has taken up to-night. We all know the interest that the hon. Member for Morpeth has taken in labour matters, and we know, too, that the sympathy which he has with working men—a sympathy which working men feel for each other—has led him to take a course which I, at any rate, consider to be injudicious. I can tell him, however, that if Lord Penrhyn's quarries were situated in the counties of Northumberland or Durham he would not have the slightest difficulty in dealing with his workmen. It is not Lord Penrhyn who is at fault. He is perfectly ready to deal with his men. I would remind the House that in no slate quarries in Wales is any quarry committee tolerated. For instance, there is no such committee in the Festiniog quarries. Yet Lord Penrhyn is held up to execration because he will not allow a standing committee in his quarries. In the North of England we have a better way of arranging these disputes, and there is no pretension on the part of the men's unions to dictate as to the management of the collieries. It is provided that in the event of any change being made in the management of an undertaking no stoppage of work by the workmen shall take place. I say that the attack on Lord Penrhyn is totally unjustified. Not a tittle of evidence has been produced in the course of the debate to show that he is an unjust employer. I would not stand up in this House to defend a man whom I consider to be a harsh landlord, and I would like to point out to my hon. friends opposite the very dangerous nature of the weapon which it is sought to put into the hands of the Board of Trade. It is a weapon which some day may be used against the workmen. Surely working men have more to gain by freedom from the interference of Parliament than employers have. I think we shall be doing the greatest injustice not only to Lord Penrhyn but to the working men of England if we pass this Resolution. It would be better for the House to allow Lord Penrhyn to work out his own salvation with respect to his quarries,
  566
  confident that no injustice will be done to a single man that works there.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman who last spoke has made at least one observation which I think will carry conviction to the minds of most hon. Members of this House, and that is, that this is a matter which goes far beyond the case of Lord Penrhyn. What then becomes of the contention of the Prime Minister that there is only a trivial matter in dispute. This question is important, because the dispute is one which is devastating a whole country side. It is injuring the trade of the country, and it is having the effect of introducing foreign slates which otherwise would never have obtained a footing in our markets. The hon. Member has had a good deal to say about the quarry committee. But will it be believed that the workmen themselves have made it clear over and over again to Lord Penrhyn that they have not the slightest intention of claiming the re establishment of the quarry committee?
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: No.
  MR. LLOYD- GEORGE: It is specifically stated in a letter from the men to Lord Penrhyn in September last that they are not going to raise the point. Their words were—
  "Your Lordship has stipulated that there shall be no discussion on any proposal to restore the old quarry committee. To this we agree"
  Yet the hon. Member opposite, who is supposed to be specifically briefed with the whole of the facts by Lord Penrhyn, comes here and makes a statement which is not correct, and which has been repeatedly repudiated by the men. Further than that, they authorise me to say here that they do not propose to again raise the question of re-appointing the quarry committee.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: Lord Penrhyn in reply to that letter from the men, expressed his regret that there was no recognition of the fact that the negotiations were to be preceded by a

  567
  distinct understanding that the claim to re-establish the quarry committee had been abandoned.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid there was an earlier letter from the men expressing their willingness not to make any mention of the quarry committee.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: But not one following the letter from Lord Penrhyn.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Surely it is not possible to have anything more specific than the words I have quoted. On September 20th the men wrote, with reference to the specific condition laid down by his Lordship as to the understanding on which the interview was granted, that they were willing to omit any reference to the question of the quarry committee and to confine their representations to the basis of the 1870 settlement. Surely it is impossible to have anything more clear than that. It is significant that while we are complaining of the action of Lord Penhryn during the last few years, hon. Members on the other side have to go back a period of thirty years to find cause of complaint against the men. The hon. Member has defended the action of Lord Penrhyn in dismissing the men's leaders, and he said that two very prominent ones were discharged because of some breach of the Explosives Regulations. I have been told there was no such breach on their part. Mr. Young, the manager of the quarry, wrote a letter to Lord Penrhyn on the 11th June, 1899, in which he said "Just before my return Mr. Pritchard suspended two men—both fire-brands." Are these the explosives referred to by the hon. Member? Mr. Young does not make any concealment of the cause of their dismissal, for he says that the discharge of these fire-brands will have a very good effect. I should like to make one or two observations with regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Macclesfield, because he is the one with whom we have mostly to deal in this matter. He spoke the mind of Lord Penrhyn and of the management of the quarry. One thing he said which I think may point towards peace. I understand that he
  568
  has made the declaration that as long as the men frankly give up the notion of a quarry committee, Lord Penrhyn is perfectly prepared to meet them. I am authorised to make the statement on their behalf that they will frankly give up every notion of the quarry committee. They have said so before, but if there is any misconception about it they say it again now. They have no notion of setting it up. But there were one or two things I was sorry to hear the hon. Member say. He said the questions we are discussing to-night are the questions which were disposed of by the jury in the recent libel action. How did he propose to prove it? He quoted a statement from the appeal of my hon. and learned friend to the jury. But he knew perfectly well that the counsel for Lord Penrhyn expressly repudiated the notion that that was the matter in dispute. The hon. Member knew that the Lord Chief Justice repeatedly said that they were not the questions at issue. Why did he withhold that fact from the House of Commons? I think it is very unfair that he should attempt to lead the House of Commons to believe that the verdict of the jury was upon the questions we are now discussing. Then there is a statement of the hon. Member with regard to the quarry committee. He put forward what appeared to be some preposterous claims set up by the quarry committee. Does he mean to say that the quarry committee passed a resolution demanding and pressing upon the management the concession of three months holiday for the men?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: That is what he said.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I must say this is carrying the thing a little too far.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: Every single statement I made I quoted from the minute book of the quarry committee. The hon. Member should see the book if he doubts it.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I ask the hon. Member again, because I am speaking after conversation with a member of the quarry committee. Does the

  569
  hon. Member really mean to induce the House to believe that these men, through their representatives, seriously claimed three months holiday? I think we are entitled to ask that. Since I do not get an answer, let me at once say that it is an absolute and unmitigated falsehood.
  Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I really cannot sit still under that kind of thing. I would not take a charge of that sort from any man in the world. The quotation from the minute-book is as follows. (Hon. Members: What date? The date I cannot give, but the minute-book is between 1874 and 1885—
  "Matter to be put before' the galleries. Holidays for three months to whoever wishes it, and every man to have his bargain on his return."
  I ask the hon. Member please to withdraw the word "falsehood."[Cries of "Withdraw."]
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member used the term falsehood with reference to the hon. Member for Macclesfield——
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have said I did not.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's language was ambiguous, or I should have called him to order at once, but I understand him now to say that he did not use the word with reference to the hon. Member.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I was under the impression—I am subject to correc tion—that in making the statement I said it was not in reference to the hon. Member. What I say is this. I have not seen the minute-book, but I have the statement of a prominent member of the quarry committee, and if the hon. Member puts it forward that the whole of the men made a claim for three months holiday, I say it is absolutely untrue. Here is an action in which all these charges against the men and the Committee were investigated; it is extraordinary that this statement was never made there! I still say that the men never put forward this claim. I do not know what the hon. Member has in his
  570
  possession, but this does not appear in the copy of the minute-book I have seen. The hon. Member has it as it has been given to him; I do not say that he is responsible for any mistake or misrepresentation; but I should like to know if the hon. Member has the original. These copies are translations. Who made the translations? It is a matter for comment that this charge was never put forward against the men under circumstances where there was an opportunity for investigating it. These questions have all been introduced by hon. Members opposite. The question before the House is the action of the Government with regard to the Penrhyn dispute The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University suggested the practicability of bringing a vote of censure against both Front Benches. I think that would be a rather popular Motion. But let us take them in turn, and deal first with the present Treasury Bench, because they have the responsibility now. This Motion of censure is not confined merely to administration. The right hon. Gentleman says they ought to legislate by means of a more effective Bill. I quite agree, but let us first of all demonstrate that the present Act is ineffective. Let us exhaust the possibilities of this Act to begin with. The right hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that the Board of Trade could bring the parties together. Is not that very important in view of the statement made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield with regard to the quarry committee? That is exactly the sort of misconception that the Board of Trade might have removed if they had taken action. It is perfectly true that this is a matter of considerable importance outside the district itself. It is not merely a question of the distress in Bethesda, or that a once thriving community is withering away. It is all very well to talk about the present prosperity of the quarry. Lord Penrhyn appeared by counsel before the Quarter Sessions to have his assessment lowered because he was not making the money he used to out of the quarry. The slate trade throughout the kingdom is suffering. Slates which had hardly a chance before are pouring in from the Continent

  571
  and America, and once they get in it will be very difficult to keep them out. It is a matter of the greatest possible importance to the whole of the community. I hope that nothing has been said in this debate to prevent the possibility of conciliation. I would ask the Prime Minister to remember that the most exasperating statements have been made by hon. Gentlemen on his own side of the House. The men have been perfectly willing, and are still willing, to meet Lord Penrhyn, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, to consider whether he cannot see his way even now to suggest to Lord Penrhyn that he should meet his men.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNEKMAN: In the short time I shall occupy the time of the House, it is not my intention to pursue the particular line of argument which has been followed during the evening sitting. The question of the respective action and the merits of the conduct of Lord Penrhyn and the workmen is, no doubt, one of great interest, and I am not surprised that it should have been much discussed to-night; but it is not the question which the Motion of my right, hon. friend brings before the House on this occasion. That question is whether the Board of Trade has been well advised in the action it has taken, or the inaction it has followed, in this matter. I have two observations to make on the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, The first is this. I think it was regrettable that he expressed a rather ungenerous view of the action of the men in regard to this matter. He implied that they had been slow in appealing to the Board of Trade. He went on to analyse their motives in delaying their application, and he implied, in fact, he almost stated to the House his opinion, that their motive had been to assist themselves and their friends in the raising of money, and that therefore they were practically insincere in their appeal to the Government to interfere. I think that that was not a right observation to make, and I do not think there is any justification for it. The justification, at all events, seems to me to be destroyed by the fact that a considerable time before they made this appeal to the Board of Trade the men had themselves
  572
  asked for arbitration, which proves their sincerity, and their perfect confidence in their own case. But then the right hon. Gentleman twitted the Opposition with their conduct in having brought forward this Motion at all. He represented us as being anxious, if we could, to bring a vote of censure against the Government, and having greedily laid hold of this comparatively small and local matter for that purpose. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that in that he is entirely mistaken. If we wanted materials for votes of censure we have an embarras des richesses. I am one who has never been able to see any particular advantage in numerous votes of censure, even where Parties were more evenly divided than they are at present. I have been myself a humble member of a Government which had to meet votes of censure almost every week, and sometimes more than one in a week, and in observing the effect I have never been able to discover that the Opposition who indulged in these frequent and prolific votes of censure did any good for themselves by them. In our present position, with such a majority against us as we have, I have never been able to see that we should go out of our way searching for votes of censure. But this is a perfectly clear and distinct case, as we think, of avoidance of duty on the part of a public Department, and I am not aware of any other means that we have of bringing it in a definite, formal, and peremptory-form before the House than by such a Motion as my right hon. friend has made. The right hon. Gentleman went on with his picture, and he imagined what would happen if we succeeded in ousting the Government with this Motion. His imagination led him to portray a Government formed from this side of the House endeavouring to deal with this question, and he expressed his anticipation that we should find it impossible to deal with it because we should encounter, as he has had to encounter, the stubborn will of Lord Penrhyn; and he pictured us, therefore, with all the responsibilities of the Empire upon us, as unable to get over this little difficulty with this one determined man. I do not think that was a very flattering picture, not only of us, but of the British character, for a Minister of the Crown to draw, and I can assure him that I think that if such a concatenation of circumstances

  573
  were to occur we might find some way of dealing with the matter. ["How?"] other than that of the right hon. Gentleman, which is to stand shivering in the presence of Lord Penrhyn, unable even to venture to approach him with a view to introducing the element of conciliation into this deplorable dispute. ["How?"] This concatenation of circumstances has not yet arisen.
  I have said that I am not going into the question of the relative degrees of blame that may be attachable to the one party or the other in this dispute. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Macclesfield, who often appears in the rôle of advocatus diaboli [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh")—I am entirely wrong there, because he has not been the advocate of the accuser, but of the accused person in each case. He often appears here as the advocate of a prominent personage in whom he is interested, or whom he represents, and he discharges that duty with great effect. I do not wonder that he has made a strong case to-day. If I were to make an observation on the case he has made out, I should say he has made too strong a case, because if matters are of such a rosy hue as he has painted them, and if it be true that Lord Penrhyn's only points of difference with his late employees are the question of the resuscitation of the quarry committee and the possible displacement of the men now at work, if these are the only two points, they are out of the way already, for we have it on authority that neither the one nor the other point is insisted upon by the men. Here let me point out, not only that there are these grounds of agreement, but that they would have been at once discovered if there had been that bringing together of the parties which it was the duty of the Board of Trade, in our opinion, to have brought about. We say the Department ought to have used the powers it possesses, and we naturally contrast the action of the Department in the present case with that pursued at the end of 1896, and the beginning of 1897. But we remember that in those days the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was President of the Board of Trade, and that right hon. Gentleman, if he will
  574
  allow me to say so, has on many occasions appeared as the good fairy of the Government. He has often led them out of trouble. I admit that he does not display the usual attributes and properties of a fairy; we see neither wings nor wand; but again and again he has acted in that capacity. He has been in many offices, and in every one he has left behind him traces of his conciliatory spirit. When the Party opposite resolved to take the great and fatal leap of giving self-government to the counties, they looked about for some one who would lend the sweet influence of the magistrates and loose the bonds of County Councils, and they found him in the right hon. Gentleman who was President of the Local Government Board. Then a few years ago the Government, thinking for decency's sake it was right to make some attempt to check the worst developments of drunkenness, again found a champion to engage the leviathan of liquor in the right hon. Gentleman, who had become Home Secretary. Then, again, the Government are troubled with a tax of an unjust and irritating character which in some dream of inter-colonial relations of a new kind they had introduced; how and where are they to find any one who will rid them of this Old Man of the Sea? They then made the right hon. Gentleman Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are not astonished to find that it was in his time at the Board of Trade that that Conciliation Bill was passed which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University speaks of with such contempt, although he voted for it as a Member of the Government, and I have not heard that he offered resignation of his office in indignation at the imbecility of the measure. When that Bill passed it was the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer who conducted the negotiations my right hon. friend the Member for Fife has described.
  The present head of the Board of Trade says that in the days in which we live that course cannot be followed, that there cannot be any more appeals made to men or masters to meet together with the assistance of the Board of Trade in order to try if a dispute can be settled. He says that there is no obligation laid upon the Board of Trade, but that it is left to their discretion. Yes, Sir, but that discretion is subject to the review of

  575
  Parliament, and it is expected that Parliament, by compulsion if necessary, will see that it is carried out. The right hon. Gentleman then says:—
  "What is the use of it when there is no prospect of success?"
  How does he know that there is no prospect of success? How can he realise what the influence would be of the two facts to which I have referred, that the men neither insist on the committee nor on any disturbance of the existing working? Are there not cases, which my right hon. friend has quoted, where with but the authority of this poor Act, so contemptible in the eyes of the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway opposite, and with but a paltry prospect of success the very best results were obtained by this process? And supposing the worst happened, and Lord Penrhyn rudely rejected the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman and steeled himself against the words and efforts of conciliation, would the Conciliation Act be in any worse case than if it had been laid up in lavender as it is now? Has the right hon. Gentleman considered what the effect of his attitude is? It is the most detrimental course that could be followed, this discreet quiescence, a quiescence that very easily becomes acquiescence. What could happen that would be more likely to encourage the contumacious workman, or the stubborn and headstrong employer, to resist any attempt at conciliation than that they should know that all they have to do, according to the precedent the right hon. Gentleman has established, is to declaim in public that they will not accept his interference, and then the right hon. Gentleman and his Department will leave them alone? My firm belief is that a strenuous and courageous proposal for conciliation, such as was made in 1896, if it had no immediate effect would, at all events, throw the burden of responsibility so completely on the refusing side as to exert a great influence towards a settlement. Was there ever such a concourse of authority as we have in this case? Here is a dispute which is going on with the calamitous results which have been described to the House. It is of old
  576
  standing; the want of confidence between the parties is of old standing, at all events; you have the highest local authority urging conciliation, you have the Lord Chief Justice of England, who has heard the whole case, the jury in the case, and Lord Penrhyn's own counsel, all expressing the opinion that a very little effort would overcome the difficulties so that the quarrel might be brought to an end. Are all these things to be frustrated simply because in 1896 Lord Penrhyn would not allow the conference to be held under the conditions then laid down? I agree with those who have said that this is no ordinary trade dispute, no mere local difference about wages, hours of labour, or the management of a trade. I venture to say that this is as much a land dispute as one of any kind. These men who are involved have built their own houses, in some cases with their own hands; they have from father to son acquired a particular skill in a peculiar trade, so that while they are unfitted for most other occupations other men are little fit for this trade. In that way they have acquired a sort of moral-tenant right in the life from which they are now shut out. [An Hon. Member: By whom?] By whose fault? That is what we want to know. I pronounce no opinion upon it. [A laugh.] I suppose the hon. Member who laughs would pronounce an opinion upon it; he does not want any inquiry, he has made up his mind long ago. The House of Commons and the public generally ought to know much more about the real facts of the case before they come to any conclusion in the matter; and for my part I decline to give any opinion. But I urge the necessity of an inquiry at the instance of the Board of Trade in order that we may know the facts. The question is a large one. It is not made less important and less serious, but more serious, by the fact to which I have referred—that it introduces the rights of the landowner into the ordinary questions of a trade dispute. To let matters go on as they are would be the worst possible service, not only to the interests of the workers but to the interests of the capitalist and the landowner. Therefore it is that we use to-day the only means in our power to urge

  577
  upon the Government to take such steps as are open to them for putting an end to a disastrous situation.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that the right hon. Gentleman has contributed any very powerful arguments in order to induce the House to make up its mind on the merits of the dispute which has occupied so much of our time this afternoon, but at all events I did hope, during the first quarter of an hour of his speech, that I should be able to congratulate him upon having given the third of the many speeches which have been delivered to-night, but only the third, which is really relevant to the issue before the House. The right hon. Gentleman who initiated this debate confined himself, a mid the cold approval, I think, of his friends [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh.']—the cold admiration which I entirely share, to the strict issue before us, which was whether the Government was or was not to be condemned for its action or inaction in respect to the Bethesda dispute, and the studious moderation with which the right hon. Gentleman developed his thesis I am sure won admiration from both sides of the House. When my right hon. friend near me came to reply he also confined himself to that issue—whether the Government was or was not responsible for any failure in settling that dispute, whether they had or had not used to the utmost advantage the powers given to them by Parliament. But after those two right hon. Gentlemen had spoken not one single Member of the House until the right hon. Gentleman rose, addressed himself to the vote of censure on the Government. The question fell—or it rose—from a vote of censure on the Government to a vote of censure on Lord Penrhyn. The right hon. Gentleman was relevant during most of his speech, but there was one considerable lapse in the middle of it in which I really thought he was proposing the toast of my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer at a public dinner, and I really felt inclined to get up and interrupt the right hon. Gentleman at that part of his speech and lead off with "For he's a jolly good fellow." I do not think a single word of the right hon. Gentleman's
  578
  elaborate eulogy was a bit in excess of the merits of the subject of it. The only reason why I introduce this topic at this hour of the evening is to point out that the right hon. Gentleman must have had very little to say against the Government as a whole when most of his time was occupied in praising a very prominent individual member of the Government. I am the more surprised because the right hon. Gentleman gave us to understand in the earlier part of his speech, replying to the criticisms passed by my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade on the fact that this really was rather a trivial theme for anything so important as a vote of censure, that Gentlemen on that side of the House have a perfect embarras des richesses of subjects on which they would wish to move votes of censure. Is it not rather an unfortunate thing that, having this vast number of possible selections, the actual subject chosen is one on which only three relevant speeches can be made, and that one of those relevant speeches should be chiefly devoted to a eulogy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when it is the demerits of the President of the Board of Trade which are under discussion? I am sure that, if the right hon. Gentleman would only do me the honour to consult me as a friend on these matters before he selects the subject of a vote of censure, I would give him far better advice than that which he is disposed to follow.
  Now, may I, following the good example of the right hon. Gentleman, for a moment bring back the question from Lord Penrhyn to the Government? The purpose of this Motion is of course, to condemn the President of the Board of Trade, and through him the Government, and we are really driven back to the purport and intention of the Act which it is the President of the Board of Trade's business to administer. May I remind the House that not ten minutes ago the right hon. Gentleman told us that this dispute was a land dispute, and may I read to him the preamble of the Act which he thinks my right hon. friend ought to put in force? It is "an Act to make better provision for the settlement of trade disputes." So the right hon. Gentleman

  579
  quarrels with the President of the Board of Trade for not putting into force an Act for the settlement of trade disputes in a dispute which he himself calls a land dispute. [Opposition cries of "Oh."] I do not want to press the point, but the right hon. Gentleman opposite did make that observation, and that observation does call for the reply which I have ventured to give it. But, of course, there are much more important issues, and the issue, as far as the Board of Trade is concerned, is this. The Act is a Conciliation Act. It leaves absolute discretion to the Board of Trade to use the Act for the purpose of conciliation—not for the purpose of compulsorily settling disputes, not for the purpose of informing the public mind on the merits of disputes, but, to the best of its ability, acting with tact and judgment, with knowledge of the intentions of both parties to the dispute, to intervene when, but only when, the responsible Minister thinks that intervention may lead to some settlement. Now does any human being believe that the intervention of the Board of Trade, howsoever well meant, howsoever tactful, would have brought Lord Penrhyn and his quarrymen closer together than they have been? We have two crucial experiments before us which enable us to form some kind of opinion on that subject. We have, in the first place, the example of my right hon. friend, my well and properly praised friend, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who made this experiment in 1897 with the best intentions, and made it with energy and ability, but whose efforts, as everybody admits, and as he would himself be the first to admit, did not succeed, unfortunately, in settling the dispute. But we have a much later experiment, that of Sir Edward Clarke, Lord Penrhyn's counsel, a man whose capacity and ability are well known to everybody here. He, having been Lord Penrhyn's counsel, and intimately acquainted with all the facts of the case, did make the attempt, and also failed. Now is there the smallest ground to
  580
  suppose that where the Government failed in 1897 and where Lord Penrhyn's counsel failed in 1903 any object in the direction of conciliation would be served by the further intervention of the Board of Trade? But then it is said in answer to that, that after all my right hon. friend might have failed, but he would, in the first place, have got a report on which the public might have formed some judgment, and, in the second place, he could have done no harm whatever, and might conceivably have done some good. Well, let us just consider both those propositions.
  As regards the report, what value would a report be made under an Act which gives no power to summon witnesses, no power to examine witnesses on oath, no power to examine any man who does not wish to be examined, no power to bring both parties in the dispute before them? The report of an inquiry of that kind might have some merits, but whatever merits it might have, it would evidently be perfectly incapable of bringing the facts before the public which would enable it to form a fair judgment on the point. If it is replied to that, that supposing Lord Penrhyn had refused to give his-evidence before the conciliator he would have brought his own fate upon his head, and would be himself responsible for any public misapprehension, I would point out that, whether or not Lord Penrhyn would then have deserved his fate, justice would not have been done, the public would not have known how the facts lay and be in a position to form any fair judgment on the subject, and the very object hon. Gentlemen opposite have in view would not have been served. If their object is to turn this Conciliation Act into an Act of Inquiry, then you must modify it profoundly; you must give powers of compulsion to the conciliator, who will be a conciliator no longer, but a judge with all the power and independence of a judge. But if you do that you will require a new Act of Parliament, and will profoundly modify the legislation

  581
  which you deliberately adopted. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman further, that when he looks forward to making these modifications in this or some other direction in regard to the Act, he is running directly counter to the disclaimer made by the mover of the Motion, who initiated this debate by saying that he desired no modification of the existing law. I would beg the House to bear in mind that the existing law was intended to be a voluntary law in every respect, as regards both employer and employed, and that if you mean to keep that principle, you cannot turn it even into a law for a Court of compulsory inquiry, much less for a Court of compulsory arbitration, but that if you choose to leave the safe ground on which Parliament has placed this measure you will be driven, step by step, first to making the existing Act an Act enabling you to have compulsory inquiries, and then an Act for enabling the Court to give a compulsory decision. I see no safe ground on which you can pause before you come to that ultimate conclusion—a conclusion to which every party in this House, the representatives of labour no less than the representatives of capital, is reluctant to come. But if you once say that whenever either party to a dispute appeals to the Board of Trade you are to have an inquiry, and if that inquiry is to be of use, you must compel both parties to come before you, you are driven the entire length to an entirely novel and revolutionary system which, instead of this purely voluntary system of conciliation, will give you compulsory arbitration. That really, I think, exhausts the narrow part of the controversy which has been touched on in con-
  582
  nection with the vote of censure. It is not my business to go into that larger field of controversy which deals with the merits, not of the Government, but of Lord Penrhyn.
  I must say one word upon the existing: Act of Parliament. My right hon. friend the Member for Cambridge University, in an interesting, ingenious, and most characteristic speech, told us that this Act, worked in the voluntary fashion in which the Board of Trade is working it, was a sham and delusion. If my right hon. friend will read the Report of the Board of Trade as to the working of the Bill, he will, I think, withdraw from that statement. The number of cases which the Board of Trade have dealt with since the Act came into force has been very great, and no less than ninety-six disputes in the eight yean which have elapsed have been settled by this voluntary machinery.
  SIR JOHN GORST: They would have been settled without the Act at all.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think not Let my right hon. friend read the Report of the Board of Trade. But it is certainly true that conciliation is of no use until the people concerned wish to be conciliated. You cannot bring the parties-together until they have some inclination to be brought together; and you cannot make them friends until some scintillation of friendship has begun to spring up. That process requires a little assistance sometimes, and it has been most successfully given by the Board of Trade under this Act; and I do not think that we ought to undervalue what the Act has. done, or can do, simply because it cannot do, and was never intended to do, much

  583
  more difficult things—things we should all like to see accomplished, but the machinery for accomplishing which it is not easy to devise. As to Lord Penrhyn, I have only one thing to say. As far as I can make out from the most interesting and brilliant speech of my hon. friend the Member for Macclesfield—a speech listened to by his friends with sympathy and admiration, and by his opponents with admiration and even with some sympathy—as far as I understand from that speech, Lord Penrhyn's only quarrel with the quarry committee is that that committee did two things, neither of which ought to be done, it will be admitted, by any committee which professes to represent the general interests of the workmen as a whole in any business whatever. In the first pi ice, the committee are alleged to have interfered with the management of the quarry—a thing most deleterious from the business point of view; and, secondly, it is alleged that they did not represent the workmen as a whole, though they were supposed to. I understand that Lord Penrhyn has no objection to there being a committee of trade unionists in his quarry provided that they only represent the trade unionists, and that if there is to be a committee professing to represent the men as a whole, that committee cannot and ought not to be drawn from the trade unionists alone. Such a committee must represent every class of workmen, organised and unorganised, in the quarry. The next proposition is that Lord Penrhyn is the proper judge of the number of men who can best carry on the business in his own quarry, and he can-not be expected to bring in men who have been in his employment, but who are so no longer, either by unduly increasing the number of men in his quarries or by
  584
  turning out the men already in his employment: I do not think I have miss-stated the case, and I do not believe there is a man on either side of the House, Conservative or Radical, trade unionist or employer, whatever his opinions may be, or whatever his social status may be, who differs from either of those propositions. If that be so, this debate, which has served so few purposes, may possibly have served the purpose of clearing the atmosphere on this subject. And I am emboldened to think that this statement of Lord Penrhyn's opinions, which I have collected from those who have spoken on his behalf, will stand cross examination, because I gathered from my hon. friend's speech that it was advanced in court. He could have been cross examined in court, and was not cross examined upon it.
  MR. ROBSON: Lord Penrhyn never in any way whatever assented to the formation of a trade union in his quarry. Lord Penrhyn was challenged to state the form or nature of organisation he would allow to any committee or body on behalf of the men, and he could not state it. It is an absolute novelty to say that he is willing to allow a committee, but not a particular quarry committee.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps I was wrong to have travelled outside the vote of censure to the subject which has engaged the attention of the House of Commons throughout this debate. But the point, as I understand it, is this. Lord Penrhyn has no objection to the men belonging to a trade union. He has no objection to his workmen

  585
  organising themselves as they please, and therefore it follows necessarily that he has no objection to those members among his working body who are trade unionists. What he does object to is the trade union committee or the committee representing the trade unionists, professing to represent the whole body of workmen. And though it is not my business to offer an opinion on the point I think Lord Penrhyn is perfectly right, and I believe everybody else thinks so too.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: On that point, yes.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then the subject on which we have been quarrelling all night is a subject on which we appear to be agreed. But how about the subject on which we have not been quarrelling at all—the merits of the Government? Is it really worth while to invoke all the machinery of a vote of censure in order to deal with what at the very worst is a mistaken exercise of discretion in a matter in which really the House at large can hardly be a judge of what sound discretion is? You give to the President of the Board of Trade for the time being a most difficult and delicate duty, the right exercise of which depends on a nice judgment of the forces concerned, of the intentions of the employer, of the views of the employed. And then you make that nice exercise of discretion the subject of the clumsy analysis inevitable to a Parliamentary debate! I think you are doing a great deal by controversies of this kind to ruin the value of an Act which has done great service, and I do not think this House gains, and I do not
  586
  think the country gains, by bringing these personal and trade disputes into the arena of party politics. Let us suppose for a moment that the rights of the case are with Lord Penrhyn. Let us suppose that hon. Gentlemen opposite themselves thought that the rights of the case were with Lord Penrhyn and not with Lord Penrhyn's late employees. Should we have a vote of censure in favour of a single employer, or is the machinery of a vote of censure never to be used except in favour of large numbers and against an individual? I look with great distrust on these proceedings. It was the hon. Member for Carnarvon who said just now with perfect truth that his true antagonist was not the Gentleman sitting on this bench, but my hon. friend the Member for Macclesfield. He was right. And what does that mean? It means that the whole party machinery of this House has been called into play to decide whether the representatives of the men in a particular dispute in this House are right or the representatives of their employer. That is bad for the House of Commons. It is bad for the party system. It is bad for the trade and economic conditions of the country, and I greatly deplore that the right hon. Gentleman, in the exercise of his undoubted prerogative of choosing out of the embarras des richesses the number of things on which it was worth while to attack the Government by all the elaborrate machinery of a vote of censure, should have thought fit to select this one topic, the whole brunt of the controversy on which has turned on the merits of one single individual in the management of his own property. I do not profess to any knowledge of this dispute. I only wish it could be brought to an end. I only wish that all the unhappiness and misery

  587
  to which it has inevitably given rise could, as by the fairy wand of my right hon. friend, be suddenly brought to a conclusion. But, Sir, nothing of that kind is gained; we make no step in the direction of that progress by turning this unhappy local dispute into a topic on which Parties are to try their strength, and by which, I suppose, it is intended
  to serve some obscure party object in the perennial controversy between the two great Parties of the State.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 182; Noes, 316. (Division List No. 70.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Grant, Corrie

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

  Norman, Henry

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Harwood, George

  Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Partington, Oswald

  Bell, Richard

  Hayter, Rt Hon Sir Arthur D.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Black, Alexander William

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Blake, Edward

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Perks, Robert William

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristl, E

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Brigg, John

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Price, Robert John

  Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Priestley, Arthur

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur U.

  Rea, Russell

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Burns, John

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Burt, Thomas

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Caldwell, James

  Joyce, Michael

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Cameron, Robert

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Kitson, Sir James

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Lambert, George

  Rose, Charles Day

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Langley, Batty

  Runciman, Walter

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Russell, T. W.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Crooks, William

  Leng, Sir John

  Shackleton, David James

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Levy, Maurice

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardign

  Lloyd-George, David

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Delany, William

  Lough, Thomas

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Devlin, Chas Ramsay (Galway)

  Lundon, W.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Dilke, Rt Hon. Sir Charles

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Crae, George

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (North'nts

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Duncan J. Hastings

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Dunn, Sir William

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Sullivan, Donal

  Elibank, Master of

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)

  Ellis, John Edward

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Tennant, Harold John

  Emmott, Alfred

  Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glam., E.)

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Mooney, John J.

  Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Tomkinson, James

  Field, William

  Moss, Samuel

  Toulmin, George

  Fitzmaurice. Lord Edmond

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Ure, Alexander

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Murphy, John

  Wallace, Robert

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Whiteley, G. (York, W. B.)

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Weir, James Galloway

  Williams, O. (Merioneth)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

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

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Aird, Sir John

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G.(Midx

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Cranborne, Lord

  Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon Sir H

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Heath, Jas. (Staffords., N. W.

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tr. Haml'ts

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Balfour, Rt. Hon A. J. (Manch'r

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Helder, Augustus

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

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

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somr s't,E.

  Barry, Sir Fras. T. (Windsor)

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Doughty, George

  Horner, Frederick William

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Howard, Jn. (Kent, Fave'h'm)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham

  Bignold, Arthur

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Bigwood, James

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Bill, Charles

  Faber, E. B. (Hants, W.)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Bond, Edward

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Kemp, Lieut -Colonel George

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Man'r

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

  Bowles, Lt-Col. H. F. (Middlesex

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Keswick, William

  Brassey, Albert

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Kimber, Henry

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Brown, Sir Alx. H. (Shropsh.)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Knowles, Lees

  Brymer, William Ernest

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  Bull, William James

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Butcher, John George

  Flower, Ernest

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Campbell, Rt Hn J A (Glasg.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Carlile, William Walter

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Carson, Rt. Hon, Sir Edw. H.

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.)

  Garfit, William

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gibbs, Hn A. G. H (City of Lond

  Lockie, John

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Chamberlain, Rt Hon J (Birm

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin amp; Nrn

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J A (Worc

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.

  Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(Tr. H'ml'ts

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Chapman, Edward

  Gore, Hn. G. R C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Lowe, Francis William

  Charrington, Spencer

  Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lowther, Rt Hn. J W (Cum. Penr

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

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

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs

  MacIver. David (Liverpool)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gretton, John

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool

  590

  591

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh, W

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Malcolm, Ian

  Purvis, Robert

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Rankin, Sir James

  Talbot, Rt. Hn J. G. (Oxfd Univ

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Came

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n

  Ratcliffe, R. F

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Milvain, Thomas

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Renwick, George

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridqe)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  More, Robert, Jasper (Shropsh

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'shire

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Robinson, Brooke

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Webb, Col. William George

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A C E (Taunton

  Mount, William Arthur

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts)

  Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton-u.-Lyne)

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Williams Rt Hn J Powell-(B'h'm

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Myers, William Henry

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

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

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (B

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Seely, Maj. J. E.B. (Isle of Wight

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Shaw-Stewart, H. M. (Renfrew)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Penn, John

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

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Percy, Earl

  Spear, John Ward

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

  Resolution agreed to.

  COUNTY COUNCILS (BILLS IN PARLIAMENT) BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered; to be read the third time this day.
  WAYS AND MEANS [23rd April.]
  Resolution reported.

  CUSTOMS—TEA.
  "That the Customs Duty now charged on Tea shall continue to be charged until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and four (that is to say): Tea—the pound Sixpence."
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chairman of Ways and Means, and Mr. Arthur Elliot.

  IRISH VALUATION ACTS.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire and report what
  592
  changes in the Irish Valuation Acts are desirable in order to enable a re-valuation of rateable property in any district to be made on a basis equitable to all classes of ratepayers, and to be brought into force in an effective manner.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of—The Lord Advocate, Mr. Clancy, Sir John Colomb, Mr. Charles Craig, Mr. Charles Douglas, Mr. Duke, Mr. Goulding, Sir James Haslett, Mr. Hemphill, Mr. Hozier, Mr. Lee, Mr. Lough, Mr. M'Cann, Mr. M'Killop, and Mr. Randles.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That five be the quorum.—(Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.)
  Adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR 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:—
Dublin Improvement (Bull Alley Area); Great Western Railway (Pension Fund).
North-Western Electricity and Power Gas Bill [H.L.]. Petition for additional provision; of the Promoters of the North-Western Electricity and Power Gas Bill; together with the proposed Amendment annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
Salford Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Petition for additional provision; of Salford Corporation; together with the proposed clause annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
Dublin Improvement (Bull Alley Area) Bill. Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General in Ireland, received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Manchester Southern Tram ways (Lancashire) Bill [H.L.]; Manchester Southern Tramways (Cheshire) Bill [H.L.]. Leave given to the Select Committee to consolidate the Bills into one Bill if they think fit.
Glasgow Corporation (Police) Draft Provisional Order; ordered, that the evidence taken before the Committee of this House on the Glasgow Corporation (Sewage) Bill, 1896, be referred to the Commissioners appointed under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, to inquire into the Glasgow Corporation (Police) Draft Provisional Order.
Cleveland and Durham County Electric Power Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Bill [H.L.]; Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Wirral Railway Bill [H.L.]; Harrogate Water Bill [H.L.]. Committee to meet on Thursday next.
Pelican and British Empire Life Office Bill [H.L.]. The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on the 12th and 26th of March last discharged, and Bill committed for Thursday next.
Wellington (Salop) Gas Bill [H.L.]. The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on the 12th and 26th of March last discharged and Bill committed for Thursday next.
Harrow and Stanmore Gas Bill [H.L.]. The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on the 16th and 26th of March last discharged, and Bill committed for Thursday next.
South-Western and Isle of Wight Junction Railway Bill [H.L.]. The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on the 12th and 26th of March last discharged, and Bill committed.
Southampton Harbour Bill [H.L.]. The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on the 9th and 26th of March last discharged, and Bill committed.
Bristol Corporation Bill [H.L.]. The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The order made on the 9th of March last discharged, and Bill committed.
Gosport, Fareham, and Cosham Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Wakefield and District Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Bangor Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Tynemouth and District Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Committed. The Committees to he proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Life Association of Scotland Bill [H.L.]; Hexham Gas Bill [H.L.]; Lima Railways Bill [H.L.]; Indiarubber, Guttapercha, and Telegraph Works Company Bill [H.L.]; North's Navigation Collieries Bill [H.L.]; Faversham Gas Bill [H.L.]; Exeter Railway Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
South-Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill [H.L.]; Sutton

435
Coldfield Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Cardiff Railway Bill [H.L.]; Manchester Southern Tramways (Lancashire) Bill [H.L.]; Manchester Southern Tramways (Cheshire) Bill [H.L.]; South Lancashire Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Bill [H.L.]; North Cheshire Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Denman be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Wandsworth; read, and agreed to.
Winchester Water and Gas Bill; Market Drayton Gas Bill; Ipswich Gas Bill; Great Northern and City Railway Bill; Burgess Hill and St. John's Common Gas Bill; Broadstairs Gas Bill; Bath Corporation Water Bill; Bridgwater Gas Bill; East Ardsley Gas Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Stoke Newington Borough Council Bill; Sutton District Water Bill; Midland Railway Bill; London Hydraulic Power Bill; North Middlesex Gas Bill; Maidstone Gas Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  MUNICIPAL TRADING.
  Message from the Commons that they have come to the following Resolution, to which they desire the concurrence of this House, viz.: That it is expedient that a Select Committee of this House be appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords to consider and report as to the principles which should govern powers given by Bills and Provisional Orders to municipal and other local authorities for industrial enterprise within or without the area of their jurisdiction.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the following Papers having been commanded to be presented to this House by His Majesty had been so presented on the following dates by delivery to the Clerk of the Parliaments, pursuant to Standing Order No. CXI., viz.:

  CHARITY COMMISSION.
  Fiftieth Report of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales. (April 1.)

  TREATY SERIES.
  No. 4. (1903)—Convention between the United Kingdom and the United States of America for the adjustment of the boundary between the Dominion of Canada and the territory of Alaska. Signed at Washington, 24th January, 1903. [Ratifications exchanged at Washington, 3rd March, 1903.] (April.1)
  No. 5. (1903)—Convention between the United Kingdom and Denmark for regulating the fisheries outside territorial waters in the ocean surrounding the Faröe Islands and Iceland. Signed at London, 24th June, 1901. [Ratifications exchanged at London, 28th May, 1902.] (April 17th.)

  TRADE REPORTS.
  I.: Annual Series.
  No. 2947. Greece (Thessaly). (April 2.)
  No. 2948. Somaliland Protectorate. (April 2.)
  No. 2949. France. (Brest and District). (April,2.)
  No. 2950. Turkey (Constantinople). (April 4.)
  No. 2951. Mexico (Mexico). (April 4th.)
  No. 2952. United States (Chicago). (April 20.)
  No. 2953. Greece (Morea and the Provinces of Acarnania and Ætolia). (April 20.)
  No. 2954. Portugal (Foreign Trade). (April 20.)
  No. 2955. France (Cherbourg). (April 20.)
  No. 2956. Germany (Chemnitz). (April 20.)
  No. 2957. Greece (the Cyclades). (April 22.)
  No. 2958. Servia. (April 22.)
  No. 2959. Germany. (April 24.)
  No. 2960. France (Havre). (April 24.)
  II. Index to Reports of His Majesty's Diplomatic and Consular Representatives Abroad on trade and subjects of general interests (with Appendix), 1902. (April 22.)

  RUSSIA (NEW GENERAL CUSTOMS TARIFF).
  Translation of the New General Customs Tariff for the European Frontiers of Russia, with comparison, as far as possible, of the rates of Customs duty contained in the tariff with the rates at present in force on imports into European Russia from the United Kingdom. (April 2.)
  POLICE (SCOTLAND).
  Forty-fifth Annual Report of His Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland, for the year ended 31st December 1902. (April 2.)
  LUNACY (SCOTLAND) ACT.
  Forty-fifth Annual Report of the General Board of Commissioners in Lunacy for Scotland. (April 4.)
  PRISONS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1877.
  Twenty-fifth Annual Report of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland, being the Sixty-fourth Annual Report on Prisons in Scotland. (April 4.)

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Return showing—

  I. The expenditure from the grant for public education in Scotland in the year 1902

  II. A list of day schools aided from parliamentary grant, with statistics relating thereto, for 1901–1902, and supplementary list of schools, &c.

  III. Summarised statistics of day schools in receipt of annual grants under the Code, for the year ended 31st August 1902. (April 4.)

  EXPLOSIVES (IGNITION OF POWDER AT THE E.C. POWDER COMPANY'S FACTORY, AT STONE, NEAR DARTFORD).
  Report to the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Captain J. H. Thomson, His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Explosives, on the circumstances attending an accident which occurred in the drying house for smokeless powder at the factory of the E.C. Powder Company, Limited, at Beacon Wood Stone, near Dartford, on the 3rd March, 1903. (April 6.)

  ARMY.
  I. Report of Committee on expenses incurred by officers of the Army. (April 7.)
  II. (Medical Department)—Report for the year 1901. (April 17.)

  MUNICIPAL ELECTION PETITION (BOROUGH OF SHREWSBURY).
  Report made by Morton William Smith, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, the Commissioner appointed for the trial of the Petition against the election of a town councillor for the Castle Fields Ward of the borough of Shrewsbury, holden on the 1st day of November, 1902. (April 7.)
  BANKING AND RAILWAY STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Report for December, 1902. (April 7.)
  FISHERY BOARD FOR SCOTLAND (SALMON FISHERIES).
  The cause of salmon disease; a Bacteriological Investigation, by Mr. J. Hume-Patterson, of the Bacteriological Laboratory of the City of Glasgow. (April 8.)
  EGYPT, No. 1 (1903).
  Reports by His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General on the finances, administration, and condition of Egypt and the Soudan in 1902. (April 17.)

  FISHERIES (SCOTLAND).
  Twenty-first Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, being for the year 1902—

  Part I. General Report. (April 17.)

  Part II. Salmon Fisheries. (April 17.)

  NATIONAL GALLERY, &c. (SCOTLAND).
  Ninth Annual Report to the Secretary for Scotland by the Commissioners and Trustees of the Board of Manufactures in Scotland, for the year ended 30th September, 1902. (April 17.)
  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (GREAT BRITAIN).
  Forty-sixth Report, for the year 1902, of the Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools. Part I. List of schools and detailed reports. (April 17.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND).
  Return of the areas, population, and valuation of counties, burghs, and parishes in Scotland. (April 17.)
  ROYAL OBSERVATORY (EDINBURGH).
  Thirteenth Annual Report of the Astronomer Royal for Scotland. (April 17.)
  CYPRUS.
  Report for 1901–1902. (April 20.)

  SOUTH AFRICA.
  I. Papers relating to the administration of martial law in South Africa. (In continuation of [Cd. 981]). (April 22.)
  II. Papers relating to (i.) the finances of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony; (ii.) the progress of administration in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies. (In continuation of [Cd. 1463], February, 1903.) (April 22.)

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Return of accidents and casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several railway companies in the United Kingdom during the year ended 31st December, 1902, in pursuance of the Regulation of Railways Act (1871); together with reports of the inspecting officers, assistant inspecting officers, and sub-inspectors of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain accidents which were inquired into. (April 22.)
  AGRARIAN OUTRAGES (IRELAND).
  Return for the quarter ended 31st March, 1903. (April 22.)
  AGRARIAN OFFENCES (PROVINCES) (IRELAND).
  Return for the year ended 31st December, 1902. (April 22.)
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
  Return for the month of February, 1903. (April 22.)
  WAGES AND HOURS OF LABOUR, BOARD OF TRADE (LABOUR DEPARTMENT.)
  Report on changes in rates of wages and hours of labour in the United Kingdom in 1902, with comparative statistics for 1893–1901. (April 22.)

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Statement of schemes for the formation of education committees approved up to 31st March by the Board of Education, under Section 17 of the Education Act of 1902, showing—

  Name of local education authority.

  Number of members of the council of the local education authority.

  Number of members of the Education Committee.

  Number of members of the Education Committee who are necessarily members of the Council.

  Number of women who are necessarily on the Education Committee.

  Forms of educational experience to be-represented on the Education Committee.

  Recommendations or nominations (if any). (April 24.)

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (EVICTION NOTICES).
  Return of the number of eviction notices filed during the quarter ended 31st March, 1903. (April 24.)
  COMMITTEE ON BRITISH FORESTRY.
  Minutes of evidence taken before the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Agriculture to inquire into and report upon British Forestry; with appendices and index. (April 24.)

  AFRICA, No. 2 (1903).
  Correspondence relating to the recruitment of labour in the British Central Africa Protectorate for employment in the Transvaal. (April 25.)
  The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1897.
  Fifth Report of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Board to the Secretary for Scotland.
  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  Return of evictions in Ireland for the quarter ended 31st March, 1903.
  SOUTH AFRICA.
  Further Papers relating to the progress of administration in the Transvaal (in continuation of [Cd. 1551], April, 1903).
  QUEENSLAND.
  Correspondence relating to the Pacific Island Labourers' Act, 1901, of the Commonwealth of Australia (in continuation of [Cd. 1285], 1902).

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 2961. Argentine Republic (Buenos Ayres).
  No. 2962. Turkey (Palestine).
  No. 2963. Nicaragua.
  Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT.
  I. Annual statistical report by the University Court of the University of St. Andrews to the Secretary for Scotland, under the provisions of the Act, for the year 1901–1902.
  II. Annual report on the state of the finances of the University of St. Andrews, under the provisions of Section 30 of the Act.

  COURT OF SESSION (SCOTLAND).
  Act of Sederunt anent regulating the places in counties in Scotland at which commissary business shall be conducted.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Report of the proceedings of the Board of Trade up to the 31st December, 1902, and of the proceedings of the Light Railway Commissioners up to the same date.
  LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANIES.
  Statements of accounts and of life assurance and annuity business, and abstracts of actuarial reports deposited with the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the "Life Assurance Companies Act, 1870," during the year ended 31st December, 1902.
  POLICE (COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS, ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Reports of His Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary, for the year ended 29th September, 1902.
  INDIA.
  Return of all loans raised in England, under the provisions of any Acts of Parliament chargeable on the revenues of India, outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ended on the 31st March, 1903, with the rates of interest and total amount payable thereon, etc.
  CREMATION (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Regulations made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under Section 7 of the Cremation Act, 1902, with reference to the maintenance and inspection of crematoria, the conditions under which cremations may take place, etc.
  CERTIFIED DAY INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (PARLIAMENTARY GRANT).
  Recommendation of the Secretary of State for the Home Department that the sum contributed out of moneys provided by Parliament to managers of any certified day industrial school shall, under certain conditions, continue to be paid in respect of children absent owing to an epidemic.
  GOVERNMENT INSURANCES AND ANNUITIES.
  Account of all moneys received on account of contracts for the grant of deferred life annuities, and for payments on death, under the provisions of the Acts 27th and 28th Victoria, chap. 43, 45th and 46th Victoria, chap. 51, and 50th and 51st Victoria, chap. 40, and of the disposal thereof, and of the contracts made, for the year ended 31st December, 1902.
  EGYPTIAN GUARANTEED LOAN OF 1885.
  Account up to 31st March, 1903.
  GREEK LOAN OF 1898.
  Account up to 31st March, 1903.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury minutes dated—

  I. 26th March, 1903, declaring that for the due and efficient discharge of the duties of the office of Director of Naval Education, professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired on the public service are required.

  443

  II. 27th March, 1903, declaring that Mrs. Charlotte Ann Reynolds, postmistress, Daventry Post Office, was appointed without a Civil Service certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of her department.

  III. 28th March, 1903, granting a retired allowance to George F. Laidlaw, rural postman, Christchurch Post Office, under Section 12 of the Superannuation Act.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS (1894 AND 1896.)
  Two Orders, numbered 6641 and 6648 respectively, relating to the landing of foreign animals in Great Britain.

  SEA AND COAST FISHERIES FUND (IRELAND) (NON-CONGESTED DISTRICTS).
  Account for the year ended 31st December, 1902;
  Statement of the total amounts advanced and the total repayments, the amounts of promissory notes given as security, to 31st December, 1902, together with the balance outstanding;
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACTS AND AMENDING ACTS.
  Scheme for the Amendment of the management of Chew's Foundation in the Parish of Dunstable, in the County of Bedford, founded by deed of 16th December 1724, and regulated by a scheme made under the Endowed Schools Acts on 28th June, 1880;
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 29.)

PETITION.
  SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL [H.L.]
  Petition in favour of; of the Airdrie and District Merchants Association; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  BERWICKSHIRE COUNTY TOWN BILL.
  Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next—(The Lord Balfour). (No. 30.)
  NAVAL FORCES BILL.
  Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next—(The Earl Selborne). (No. 31.)
  CONTRACTS (INDIA OFFICE) BILL.
  Read 1a;.and to be printed. (No. 32.)
OUT-DOOR RELIEF (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I find, on inquiry, that it will not be convenient to some members of your Lordship's House who are interested in this Bill to take the Second Reading today. I therefore propose to postpone it, probably till this day fortnight.
  Second Reading postponed accordingly.

  ARMY ANNUAL BILL.
  Bill brought from the Commons and read 1a(according to order).
  The UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (the Earl of HARDWICKE): In order to pass this Bill through all its stages to-morrow I shall ask your Lordships to agree to suspend the Standing Orders.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners (No. 34).
  House adjourned at twenty-minutes before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, quarter past Four o'clock.