Sitting of 24 March 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY IN- QUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH.)
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Weston-super-Mare Grand Pier Bill [Lords]. Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (COMPLI- ANCE WITH PROOFS REQUIRED BY STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, examined pursuant to the Resolution of the Select Committee on Standing Orders agreed to by the House on the 22nd day of March, compliance with the further proofs required by the Select Committee on Standing Orders has

  593
  been proved, viz.:—Bristol Tramways (Extensions) Bill [Lords].
  Chippenham Gas Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Great Eastern Railway Bill (King's Consent signified). Read the third time, and passed.
  Kirkby-in-Ashfield Urban District Gas Bill; Sheppy Gas Bill; Torquay Tramways Bill; Wellington (Somerset) Gas Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  St. Marylebone Electric Lighting Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP E).
  Sir ALEXANDER H. BROWN reported from the Committee on Group E of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, they had adjourned till Thursday, 14th April, at Two of the clock. Report to lie upon the Table.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, the following fifteen Members in respect of the Railways (Private Sidings) Bill:—Sir John Brunner, Sir Frederick Banbury, Mr. Alexander Cross, Mr. Cripps, Mr. Bell, Mr. Black, Mr. Field, Mr. Kerr, Mr. Parrott, Sir Joseph Dimsdale, Colonel Lockwood, Mr. Reginald Lucas, Mr. Stroyan, Mr. Ure, and Mr. Osmond Williams.
  Mr. HALSEY further reported; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure the following fifteen Members in respect of the Hall-Marking of Foreign Plate Bill:—Mr. Norman, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Bathurst, Sir James Joicey, Sir Edwin Durniug-Lawrence, Mr. Langley, Mr. Schwann, Mr. Henderson, Mr. Lowe, Mr. Bull, Sir Thomas Esmonde, Mr. Charles Murray, Mr. Bonar Law, Colonel Denny, and Mr. Massey-Mainwaring.
  Mr. HALSEY further reported; That they had added to the Standing Com-
  594
  mittee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, the following fifteen Members in respect of the Savings Banks Acts Amendment Bill:—Sir Frederick Banbury, Sir James Woodhouse, Mr. Broadhurst, Sir Brampton Gurdon, Sir William Holland, Mr. O'Shaughnessy, Sir George Bartley, Mr. Edmund Faber, Mr. William Lawrence, Sir James Haslett, Sir Samuel Hoare, Mr. John Johnson, Sir George Fardell, Mr. Hayes Fisher, and Mr. Yoxall.
  Mr. HALSEY further reported; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and manufactures, the following fifteen Members in respect of the Police (Superannuation) Bill:—Sir Robert Reid, Mr. Spear, Sir Howard Vincent, Mr. Edmund Robertson, Mr. Hay, Mr. Helme, Mr. Heywood Johnstone, Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. John Hutton, Colonel Stopford-Sackville, Mr. Fuller, Mr. Thomas Bayley, Mr. Tomkinson, Captain Bagot, and Mr. Hudson.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Wild Birds Protection Acts Amendment Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to the Prevention of Cruelty to Children." [Prevention of Cruelty to Children (Amendment) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Tynemouth Gas Company." [Tynemouth Gas Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Company to construct works; and for other purposes." [Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Bill [Lords.]
Tynemouth Gas Bill [Lords]; Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES, ETC., BILL.
  Petition from Falkirk, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCE HOLDERS.
  Petition from Swansea, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the, Table.
  LICENCES (RENEWAL).
  Petitions against alteration of Law: from Modbury; Sydenham; Treorehy; Halifax; Aylsham; Lincoln; Bolton; Bacup; Caerphilly; Gerards Bridge; Luton; Tarleton; Gateshead; Glasgow; Swansea (two); Cromer; Rawdon; and Cradley Heath; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF BUTTER BILL.
  Petitions against; from Aylesbury; East Ham; Exeter; and Waltham Cross; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRANSVAAL (CHINESE LABOUR ORDINANCE).
  Petition from Appleby, for withdrawal; to lie upon the Table,
  NATIONAL DEBT ANNUITIES.
  Account presented, of the Gross Amount of all Bank Annuities and any Annuities for terms of years transferred, and of all Sums of Money paid to the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt, and the Gross Amount of Annuities for Lives and for terms of years, etc., granted within the year ended 5th January, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 109.]
  AFRICA (No. 4, 1904).
  Copy presented, of Correspondence relating to the Recruitment of Labour in the British Central Africa Protectorate for employment in the Transvaal [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  WEST INDIES.
  Copy presented, of Return of the Exports of Sugar and Fruit from the British West Indies to England, Canada, and to all other Countries for the years
  596
  1899–1900 and 1902–03 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE (BRITISH COLONIES WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 21st March; Mr. Gerald Balfour]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 110.]
  Copy presented, of Report of the War Office (Re-constitution) Committee, Part III. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  MUSICAL COPYRIGHT BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Law, etc.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 111.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 111.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 137.]

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Cork Lunatic Asylum Attendants' Badge.
  MR. SLOAN (): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at a meeting of the Governors of the Cork Lunatic Asylum, held on the 7th instant, a resolution was passed condemning the crown in the centre of the badge worn on the caps of the attendants, and deciding I to discontinue its use in future on the grounds that it was a Party badge and repulsive to the feelings of the attendants; and, if so, will he say if such resolution has the sanction of the Irish Government.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am informed that a resolution of the character mentioned was passed at a meeting of the Asylum Committee on the 18th instant after a number of members

  597
  had left. The resolution does not require the sanction of the Government.

  Prison-Made Goods.
  CAPTAIN BAGOT (): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state in how many British prisons mats are made by the prisoners; whether such mats are sold in competition with privately-made British mats; if so, by whose authority; or, if not, what is done with them; whether he can state the approximate number of prisoners in Great Britain employed on making mats, brushes, or other articles which compete in the market with private enterprise; and whether he will consider the advisability of marking such goods with a broad arrow or other distinctive mark.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I can answer only for prisons in England and Wales. In twenty-two of these mats have been made in the current year. Government Departments take almost the whole output, the rest is sold to private firms. The quantities are so small that they cannot, I think, interfere with the general trade; and the Prison Commissioners take great care that there shall be no competition with free labour at "cutting prices." About 11,000 prisoners are engaged daily in productive industries, including those mentioned in the Question, and of these it is estimated that about 100 may be engaged on mats for private sale. Articles other than mats are very rarely sold to private firms, and only when exceptional necessity arises. I do not think that the suggested marking of the goods is desirable; it might have an effect precisely the opposite of that which my hon. and gallant friend probably desires.

  Accounts of London and India Dock Company.
  MR. CUMMING MACDONA (): To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has been furnished with a profit and loss statement of the several properties belonging to the London and India Dock Company, particularly the result of the working and number of ships entering during the last twelve months of this dock of 100 acres, the working of St. Katherine Dock
  598
  of twenty-three acres, and the tonnage of rubbish shot into barges there, and amount received for same during the year, also the working account of Cutter Street five acres, showing the profit and loss during the last twelve months.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) No, Sir, I have no information on the subject.

  Trade Arbitrations—Stamp Duty.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL (): To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the awards of Arbitrators in trade disputes are liable to stamp duty; and, if so, since what date have they been so liable, and what is the amount of the stamp duty charged.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) There is no exemption from stamp duty in favour of the documents referred to, which are chargeable with the usual scale of duty under the heading of "Award" in the First Schedule to the Stamp Act. 1891.

  Pay, etc, of Scotch Post Office Night Messengers.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (): To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the night messengers at Sheffield and other English offices are established officers with the advantages of a yearly rise of pay and pension; and, as the work performed by the Scotch night messengers is equally important, will he now grant them established appointments similar to those held by the night messengers at Sheffield and other English offices.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am aware that at two offices in England, namely Sheffield and Hull, a few of the adult night telegraph messengers are established on scale wages; but the arrangement is exceptional, and, on vacancies, unestablished messengers are to be employed.

  Telegraph Office for Rosnakill, County Donegal.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the Milford Rural District Council, being the local authority for the district in which the town of Rosnakill

  599
  is situate, have unanimously agreed to give to the Post Office the usual guarantee requisite for the establishment of a telegraph station at Rosnakill, county Donegal; and, if so, seeing that Rosnakill has a large monthly market, and is the chief business centre for that district, he will reconsider his decision and accede to the wishes of the Milford District Council by establishing a telegraph office at this town.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) My predecessor explained to the hon. Member, in answer to a Question on the 5th March last year,† that he would not be justified in opening a telegraph office at Rosnakill even under guarantee, because there was already a telegraph office within three quarters of a mile, which appeared to meet the needs of the district. I will have renewed inquiry made and let the hon. Member know the result in due course.

  Salaries of Irish Sub-postmasters.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL (): To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is prepared to consider any representations for the improvement of the present salaries and positions of sub-postmasters in Ireland; whether he is aware that a sub-postmaster handling £20,000 a-year of public money is only paid a salary of £74 a year, out of which he has to provide a competent assistant, an office fire, light, twine, and sealing-wax, leaving him about £10 a year for himself by way of salary; and whether he would be prepared to consider a graduated scheme for emolument based upon the amount of business transacted in each office.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I have recently sanctioned a scheme under which the remuneration at some of the sub-offices throughout the United Kingdom, especially the smaller ones, will be improved, and instructions are being issued to give effect to it as soon as possible. Without fuller particulars I am unable to identify the case to which the hon. Member specially refers. The emoluments at a sub-office are based upon the total amount of business transacted. In addition to the salary, commissions are
  † See (4) Debates cxviii., 1542.
  600
  paid upon postal order, money order, savings bank, and telegraph business, where transacted; so that it by no means follows that the salary of a sub-postmaster represents his total emoluments.

  South African and East African Mail Subsidies.
  MR. CATHCART WASON (): To ask the Postmaster-General if he will say what subsidy is paid for the conveyance of mails to South Africa and East Africa respectively; and if he will take into consideration the expediency of calling for tenders for service from London to the Cape by the east and the west route alternately.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The amount of the subsidy paid to the Union Castle Mail Steamship Company for the conveyance of mails to and from South Africa is £135,000 a year; and a payment of £9,000 a year to the British India Steam Navigation Company is the only subsidy at present given for the conveyance of British mails to East Africa. The contract for the conveyance of the South African mails is between the company and the Cape Government, and, as it will not run out till the year 1910, some years must elapse before such a change as that suggested can come into practical consideration.

  Promotion of Postmen to Postmasterships.
  MR. SCHWANN ()To ask the Postmaster-General if postmen are still eligible for appointment to established postmasterships; and, if so, will he state why only one vacancy out of seventeen occurring in the Manchester surveyor's district since June, 1897, has been awarded to a postman; and, if any special qualifications are necessary for these postmasterships, will postmen be allowed opportunities for qualifying.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Postmen are eligible for appointment to established postmasterships, and applications from them are always carefully considered with those of other candidates. If one only has been appointed recently in the Manchester district it is because other

  601
  candidates were more suitable. A postman can, in the performance of his work, exhibit the qualities desirable in a postmaster, and it would not be practicable to employ him on other work.

  Liability of Foundation Manager of Voluntary School for Expenditure.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (): To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if, and under what circumstances, a foundation manager of a voluntary school is personally liable for expenditure ordered by the general body of managers.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) As the right hon. Gentleman is probably aware, there is no distinction to be drawn as regards pecuniary liability between one manager and another. I have nothing to add to the answers as to managers appointed by local authorities which I gave to the hon. Member for the Luton Division of Bedfordshire on 25th February,† and to the hon. Member for North Monmouthshire on 7th March.‡

  Fixing of "Appointed Day" in Monmouthshire.
  MR. MCKENNA (): To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, with a view to the guidance of the School Boards, which, in the ordinary course, will shortly have to make a precept for the expenses of the coming half year, he can state what will be the appointed day for the coming into operation of the Education Act in the county of Monmouth.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The Board are making an Order for fixing 1st June as the appointed day for the coming into operation of the Education Act in the county of Monmouth, or such later date as the Board may appoint. I have every hope that no delay beyond 1st June will be necessary; but, as has been explained to the county council, the Board of Education do not consider it consistent with their duty to bring the Act into operation in an area where the local authority has decided not to administer the Act in its integrity.
  †See (4) Debates, cxxx., 987.
  ‡See (4) Debates, cxxxi., 282.

  Registration of Duties on Deeds in Ireland.
  MR. CLANCY (): To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether on the registration of deeds in Ireland there are paid, in addition to office fees, a duty on every affidavit lodged for the purpose of registration and also a duty on every memorial; whether any such duties are levied or leviable in Scotland, or in England outside York, Middlesex, and Kingston-upon-Hull; and whether, if any distinction is made in this matter to the disadvantage of Ireland, he will take steps to end it.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The duties levied in Ireland are not peculiar to Ireland, but are prescribed by the Schedule to the Stamp Act, 1891, as chargeable on the instrument in question wherever such instruments are used. It is possible that there may be differences between one part of the United Kingdom and another, as regards the extent to which it is necessary or customary to make use of such instruments. But no difference is created under the Stamp Acts.

  Grants to Schools in Highland Crofting Counties.
  MR. WEIR (): To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the special grants to schools in the Highland crofting counties for the year ending 31st December, 1903, amounted to £970, a decrease of £1,280 as compared with the previous year; and can he state what circumstances have brought about this decrease.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The amount of special grant referred to in the Question is £1,200, and it has all been expended at the close of each financial year, 31st March. The table from which the hon. Member has taken the figures relates only to the calendar year. It may sometimes happen that within that period a smaller amount has been paid, although the total for the financial year did not vary. This did happen in 1903, which has misled the hon. Member.

  Licensed Victuallers in London— Transfers and Bankruptcies.
  DR. HUTCHINSON (): To ask the Secretary of State for the

  603
  Home Department if he will state the number of licensed victuallers in the county of London upon the 1st day of January, 1904, and the average number in the last five years of transfers and of bankrupts among these licensed victuallers.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) Returns from the clerks to the licensing justices show (1) that there were 5,417 licensed victuallers in the county of London in the year 1903, and (2) that the average number of transfers of victuallers' licences during the last five years has been 1,345. It appears that the average number of bankruptcies among licensed victuallers in the county of London during the last five years was forty-nine.

  Results attained by Vivisection.
  SIR JOHN ROLLESTON (): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the 14,906 experiments upon living animals in 1902, he can obtain from the institutions or persons to whom certificates were granted, a statement of the practical results in scientific knowledge or in the improvement of medical treatment which can be traced to those experiments.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) Certificates are not granted under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, to institutions. Persons holding certificates under the Act publish in considerable numbers in books, journals, and the proceedings of learned societies, reports of the experiments performed by them. I think that these reports enable those who are interested and qualified to judge as to the results which the experiments have yielded, or are likely to yield, in the advancement of scientific knowledge or the improvement of medical treatment. I may point out that by far the most of the experiments quoted in the Question are inoculations, many of which are performed either for diagnosis or in connection with the preparation and standardising of drugs and curative sera, of which the practical utility is well known.

  Hearing of Summonses under the Educa- tion and Children's Employment Acts.
  MR. TALBOT (): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether summonses under the Education Acts are now heard by the justices in certain districts of London in other places than police Courts; and if so, whether it would be possible to make such an arrangement obligatory in all metropolitan districts and in all populous places; and whether summonses under the Children's Employment Act, 1903, could be similarly treated.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) In one or two districts of London the county magistrates hold sittings to hear cases under the Education Acts, and these sittings are necessarily held in places other than the metropolitan police Courts. To make such an arrangement obligatory in London or in other populous places would require legislation. There has not yet been sufficient experience of cases under the Employment of Children Act to enable me to form any opinion as to how they should be dealt with.

  Carriage of Arms without Licence in Ireland.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if his attention has been called to the evidence given at the Clare Petty Sessions held recently, where persons were charged with poaching; that in some instances men were caught with guns who had not even a house licence for firearms; and, if so, will he say what action he proposes to take; and will he further state the number of detections made by the Inland Revenue officers in King's county for breaches of the Gun Licence Acts daring the past five years; the number of detections made by the police under the Peace Preservation Act in the same county; and the number of arms seized for the past five years.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) Two persons, L. Daly and J. Kelly, were proceeded against on the occasion mentioned. The brother of the former, who was duly licensed, left the country some time ago, and the defendant, in

  605
  ignorance of the law, failed to get a transfer of the licence. He has now remedied the omission. Kelly was proceeded against in error for his brother, and I understand fresh proceedings are about to be instituted against the latter. When the case has been heard the question of a prosecution under the Peace Preservation Act will be considered. Inquiries are also being made in another case in which it is reported that a man carried a gun without a licence of any kind. There have been ten detections by the police under the Peace Preservation Act, and eleven weapons seized in King's county during the past five years. I have no information respecting detections by officers of the Inland Revenue.

  Solway Salmon Fishery Laws— Suggested Legislation.
  MR. CLAUDE LOWTHER (): To ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he will now state if it is the intention of the Government to introduce a measure this session dealing with the present state of the Solway salmon fishery laws; and, if so, when the measure will be introduced.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) A Bill dealing with the fishery laws at present governing the Solway is in a forward state of preparation, and I hope that it may be possible to introduce it at an early date.

  Claims of Sirdar Balvant Ramchandra.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the claims made by Sirdar Balvant Ramchandra, native of Poona, which are set forth in a letter dated 25th August, 1901, addressed to the Secretary to the Government of Bombay, have yet received the consideration promised; and, if so, will he state the nature of the decision arrived at.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) There has been no change in the situation, so far as I am aware, since my predecessor answered a similar Question of the hon. Member's on the 7th May last.†
  †See (4) Debates, cxxii., 15.

  Land Revenue Defaulters in India.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether ho is now in a position to state the number of writs and warrants issued in each province in India against land revenue defaulters for the year 1902–3; and will he say how the figures compare with the year 1892–3.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I have received from the Government of India the Return which they undertook to have prepared on a uniform plan for the year 1901–2 by the local governments, and I will lay it upon the Table of the House. For the reason mentioned by my predecessor in his answer to the hon. Member's Question on 23rd July,‡ 1903, I am unable to furnish comparative figures for the year 1892–3.

  Indian Army—Compensation to Officers for Expense of Transfer.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING (): To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the attention of his military advisers has been directed to the fact that as a result of the unification of the Indian Army, officers are liable to be shifted, on promotion, and more frequently without promotion, from one end of India to another, sometimes within short periods, each change involving a break up and renewal of establishment, and a considerable expense to the officer concerned, and whether, at least in cases where the transfer is not accompanied by substantial promotion, but is made with no advantage to the individual, reasonable compensation for the expense involved to him by such transfer could be awarded.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I will consult the Government of India on this subject.

  Indian Official Secrets Act.
  MR. SCHWANN: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether His Majesty's Government proposes to sanction the Act to amend the Indian Official Secrets Act of 1889, lately passed by the Government of India; or whether, in view of the opposition to the Act voiced by the Indian and Anglo-Indian Press, and by large and influential sections of
  ‡See (4) Debates, cxxvi, 55.

  607
  the educated classes of India, he will advise His Majesty the King to withhold his approval to the Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I stated, in reply to a Question in this House on the 9th instant,† that the Official Secrets Act required no sanction from the Secretary of State for India, or, I might have added, from His Majesty's Government, and that it had already become law. I also stated that as soon as I should receive an authentic copy of the Act I would lay it upon the Table. This I propose to do; and in the meantime I can make no final statement with regard to it.

  Construction of New College of Science in Dublin—Irish Materials.
  MR. CLANCY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will take care that, in the construction of the new College of Science in Dublin, Irish materials will be used as far as possible, and that, in especial, those persons in Ireland who are engaged in working quarries will have a full opportunity of tendering for contracts for stone.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The designs have not yet been settled, but every consideration will be given to the suggestion in the Question. The foundation stone, I may observe, will be Newry granite.

  Mitchelstown and Kildorrery Petty Sessions District.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM (): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he would now consider the desirability of dividing Mitchelstown and Kildorrery into separate petty sessions districts, as Mr. Browne, clerk to the magistrates, has resigned, and such a division would remove the inconvenience at present experienced by the inhabitants of the Kildorrery district.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The reported resignation of the clerk of petty sessions has not been received. In the event of a vacancy it will be competent to the magistrates to elect different
  †See (4) Debates, cxxxi., 573.
  608
  persons to the position of clerk in each district.

  Alleged Failure to arrest a Lunatic in Ireland.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, on the 17th instant, Head Constable O'Hare of the Royal Irish Constabulary, refused on receipt of sworn information to put a lunatic under arrest, and that the man was permitted to be at large eight hours after his wife had given sworn information; and, if so, will he say what action, if any, does he intend taking in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) On the 17th instant the magistrate to whom application for a committal warrant had been made by the man's wife declined to issue same; but on the following day the requisite medical certificate was given and the man was committed to an asylum. He was detained overnight in the police barrack, and the action of the head constable was considerate.

  Royal Irish Constabulary—Officers over Sixty Years of Age.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of superior officers, county inspectors, serving in the Royal Irish Constabulary, who have reached the age of sixty and are entitled to pension; under what circumstances is their service retained; and will he, in the interest of the public service, cause inquiries to be made, with a view to their compulsory retirement.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Four county inspectors. They have not yet completed the pensionable period of service entitling them to full retiring allowance, and the Inspector-General is not aware of any reason why they should at present retire.

  Public Attendance at Strabane Work- house Services.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Roman Catholic chaplain of Strabane workhouse conducts mass every Sunday morning at

  609
  the workhouse, to which services the outside public are admitted, and on special occasions preventing many of the inmates from gaining admission; if so, will he say whether such action is in accordance with the Poor Law regulation; and, if not, will he take steps to prevent the workhouse from being used as a place of worship by the outside public.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) A complaint has been made by inmates of the workhouse' to the effect stated in the first part of the Question. It has been referred to the guardians for their consideration. The regulations do not prohibit the attendance of the public at services in the workhouse chapel; at the same time they do not contemplate any interference with the discipline and management of the workhouse.

  Limerick and Kerry Railway Company— Delay in Payment to Shareholders.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY (): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what is the cause of delay in the payment to the shareholders of 4 per cent. debenture stock in the matter of the Limerick and Kerry Railway Company, in liquidation.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Government has no information in this matter.

  Gun Licences in Ireland—Case of Mr. M. C. Kenny.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a man named M. C. Kenny has recently, in Milltown Malbay, been allowed by the police to be in possession of a gun without having a licence, and whether on a former occasion he discharged this gun on the public road; and whether attention will be called to this master.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Kenny is duly licensed to carry a gun. On the 18th June last† I answered a Question put by the hon. Member in respect to the particular incident mentioned.
  †See (4) Debates, cxxiii., 1317.

  Extra Police Drafted into Sligo and Armagh.
  MR. LONSDALE (): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland from what places the extra police were drafted into the county Sligo, the cost of which was recently remitted by His Excellency; and if he would also state from what places the extra police were "drafted into the county of Armagh, the costs of which are now in dispute.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) In both cases the additional police were drafted into Sligo and Armagh, respectively, from other counties. In the former, however, the claim made upon the county council was in respect of a reserve force of Constabulary, and when it subsequently transpired that the additional men had not been drawn from the reserve which is located by statute at the depot in Dublin, the Government was advised that there was no legal power to recover the claim. In the case of the extra police drafted into Armagh, the circumstances were not the same. There the men were on ordinary detachment duty, employed under different statutory authority and the decision of the Government in the Sligo case is not applicable.

  Army Clothing Contracts—London and Provincial Firms.
  MR. WHITLEY (): To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office what proportions of the orders for Army clothing have been placed with London and provincial firms, respectively, for the current year and for last year.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Last year orders for rather more than half the garments contracted for were secured by London firms, and this year nearly two-fifths. Owing to the completion of reserve stocks this year's orders are much smaller than last year's.

  Officers' Gratuities—Case of Major Silverthorne.
  SIR CARNE RASCH (): To ask the Secretary of State for War why the gratuity which Major Silverthorne, Royal Garrison Battalion,

  611
  elected to take in lieu of pension, while serving with the 4th Royal Garrison Regiment at Malta, was stopped during his absence on leave in England; on what ground is it ruled than an officer of Reserve serving abroad is only entitled to a gratuity of £50 per annum pro rata while on leave at home, as a Reserve officer [serving abroad receives a gratuity at the rate of £100.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.)Only actual service abroad entitles an officer to the higher grant of £100, and ordinary leave is held to form part of such service. This officer, however, was on leave at home for a period of five months prior to resignation, and therefore is only entitled to the lower gratuity of £50.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  War Office Reconstitution Committee.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will publish the terms of reference to the War Office Reconstitution Committee.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I gave the terms on Tuesday in answer to a Question by another hon. Member.†
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEasked if the terms then stated covered the whole terms.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.

  War Office Contracts and Fair Wages Clause.
  MR. BELL (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Messrs. Miskin, Limited, contractors to the War Office for the work being done at Purfleet Garrison, are not paying the painters employed by them the recognised rate of wages in the district—viz., 7½d. per hour, but only 7d. per hour; and whether he will see that the Fair Wages Clause is applied in this case and all future contracts.
  †See page 403
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT,): It appears on inquiry that only one painter is now employed by Messrs. Miskin on War Department work and that he is receiving 7½d. per hour. It is not possible to ascertain what rate was paid to others recently employed, as they have now dispersed.

  Transvaal Labour Ordinance—Recruiting in China.
  DR. MACNAMARA (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state whether the persons who have been at Tien-tsin for some weeks past recruiting coolies for the Transvaal have been licensed under Regulation I. (Recruiting) of the Regulations under the Ordinance, as set forth at page 3 of the Parliamentary Paper issued on Monday last; and if so, by whom, and to whom, such licence or licences were issued.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): No recruiting licence has yet been issued under the Regulations.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Is it not a fact that two gentlemen from the Transvaal I have been recruiting in China? I desire to know under what authority Messrs. Hamilton and Perry have been acting, as stated in my Question, since 22nd February.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I do not know that I ran answer the Question more clearly than I have answered it. If the hon. Member chooses to recruit or to take preliminary steps for recruiting he can do so. Anybody can recruit Chinese in China and will be beyond our jurisdiction and control. Of course, when it conies to taking Chinese into the Transvaal, then no doubt any Chinese nut recruited in pursuance of the Ordinance will be rejected, and have to be taken back at the recruiter's expense.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Will the Chinese who have been recruited be introduced under the Ordinance.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I do not know whether there have been any.
  DR. MACNAMARA: It is a fact there have.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE (): The right hon. Gentleman said that an Englishman recruiting Chinese would be "beyond our jurisdiction and control." Would he not be punishable by us, we having extraterritoriality?
  MR. LYTTELTONrequired notice of the Question.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Can we have an assurance that Chinese already recruited will not be introduced under the Ordinance until proper officials have been appointed.
  [No answer was returned.]

  Treatment of Coolie Children in the Transvaal.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what regulations are to be proposed for the treatment of the children of coolies in the Transvaal en reaching sixteen years of age.
  MR. LYTTELTON: No regulations appear to be necessary seeing that no children over ten will be introduced and the labourer cannot remain for more than six years.

  Crown Agents Accounts.
  MR. BAYLEY (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will lay upon the Table of the House the last accounts of the Crown Agents for the Colonies, as audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, an abstract of which is rendered to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The last abstracts of the Crown Agents Office Fund and Office Reserve Fund Accounts which have been audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General are those for 1902. I will lay copies of these accounts on the Table of the House as soon as they can be prepared.

  Negotiations with the Chinese Govern- ment for Labour for the Transvaal.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the negotiations with the Chinese Government relative to the enlistment of labourers for the Transvaal are now completed; and when he will be able to present Papers on the subject.
  MR. LYTTELTON: No, Sir. I cannot at present fix a date for Papers.

  Mortality among Kaffirs in Witwaters rand Mines.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any communications have passed between the High Commissioner and the owners of the Witwatersrand gold mines as to the grievous mortality among the Kaffirs working underground; and whether he will lay Papers on the subject upon the Table.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I am in communication with Lord Milner on this subject, to the importance of which he is fully alive. I am not in a position to lay Papers at present.

  Pacific Island Labourers Act.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will inform the House if the Pacific Island Labourers Act, 1901, of the Commonwealth of Australia, prohibits the entry into Australia of any Pacific Islander after 31st March, 1904, and enacts the deportation from Australia of Pacific Islanders from there after 31st December, 1906.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The Act in question prohibits the entry into Australia of any Pacific Island labourer after 31st March, 1904, and gives power to the Minister for External Affairs to order the deportation of any Pacific Island labourer found in Australia after the 31st December, 1906.
  MR. JOHN ELLISasked whether that answer was consistent with the right hon. Gentleman's statement on Monday night.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I stated that the Acts to which I referred have not been repealed. Those Acts were alleged to authorise slavery. I still think it is entirely inconsistent with that allegation that the Commonwealth of Australia should keep those Acts in operation from 1901 to 1906.
  MR. JOHN ELLISsaid his statement was that the system had been put an end to.

  Western Australia—Power to Flog Natives.
  MR. OSMOND WILLIAMS (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state for what offences a justice of the peace in Western Australia can sentence a native, serving under a white man, to be flogged and to two years imprisonment.
  MR. LYTTELTON: Under certain Acts of Western Australia known as the Aboriginal Offenders Acts, 1883, 1892, and 1893, a justice of the peace had power to order the whipping of an aboriginal native for certain offences when no other justice of the peace within twenty miles could be obtained to constitute a Court of two justices, but these Acts were repealed by the Criminal Code Act of Western Australia, 1902, and so far as I am aware the provisions of the repealed Acts have not been re-enacted.

  India and the South African Garrison.
  MR. EUGENE WASON (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will say whether the Council of India were unanimous in approval of the proposal in June last to charge the revenue of India with the cost of a large portion of the British troops then intended to be stationed in South Africa as part of its permanent garrion; and, if not, can copies of any opinion or dissent, with reasons for such dissent recorded by any members of the Council on that occasion, be placed before Parliament, as provided for in Section 23 of the Government of India Act of 1858, together with the Secretary of State's opinion and his reasons for such approval as provided for in the same section.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): The Council of India were not unanimous in approval of the proposal that India should, on certain conditions, contribute towards the maintenance of a garrison force in South Africa. Two members of Council recorded dissents under Section 23 of the Government of India Act, 1858. The section also gives power to the Secretary of State to require that his opinion, and the reasons for the same, shall be entered on the Minutes; but my predecessor did not exercise this power on the occasion to which the Question refers. The Question not now being before us and the proposal having been dropped. I do not propose to lay Papers.

  Brussels Sugar Convention—Meeting of the Permanent Commission.
  MR. LOUGH (): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Permanent. Commission of the Brussels Sugar Convention has met, as was expected last week; and whether they have arrived at any decision with regard to the question whether the limitation of the surtax provided in Article III. applies to sugared goods; and what steps His Majesty's Government have taken in the matter.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): The Permanent Commission met on the 10th inst. The question whether the limitation of the surtax provided in Article III. applies to sugared goods was not before the Commission, having been decided in the negative at the previous meeting. The discussion on the question whether a surtax of an amount sufficient to give rise to a bounty is allowable in the case of sugared goods has been adjourned until the next meeting of the Commission on the 10th of November next, in order to allow time for the collection by the Bureau of information and statistics from the different countries, which are necessary to enable the Commission to arrive at a decision.
  MR. LOUGH: But has not the House been promised that this question of

  617
  sugared goods should be brought before the Permanent Commission and settled in March?
  EARL PERCY: We could not possibly promise it should be settled. I have stated the steps that are being taken and the reasons for them.

  Canton River—Obstructions to Navigation.
  MR. WEIR (): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, having regard to the fact that a clause was introduced into the treaty negotiated with the Chinese Government in 1902, under which that Government undertook to remove within the space of two years the artificial obstructions to navigation in the Canton River, will he state whether any steps have yet been taken by the Chinese with a view to the removal of these obstructions.
  EARL PERCY: His Majesty's Consul-General at Canton reported on 5th October last, that the Viceroy had instructed the Hoppo to immediately request the Commissioner of Customs to take the necessary steps for carrying out the provisions of the treaty; and a preliminary survey of the harbour has been made by a Chinese revenue cutter with a view to the removal of obstructions. His Majesty's Government have received no further report.
  MR. WEIR: Will the noble Lord make further inquiries? It is not in the harbour of Canton that the obstruction exists, but it is half-way between Canton and Hong-Kong, where there is a most serious obstruction.
  EARL PERCY: My answer deals with the obstructions which the Chinese Government is pledged to remove.

  Dentistry in British East Africa and Uganda.
  MR. CATHCART WASON (): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that throughout the Protectorates of East Africa and Uganda there is no qualified practising dentist; and if he will take into consideration the
  618
  desirability of offering a free passage there to a suitable practitioner.
  EARL PERCY: I am not aware that there are any private practitioners in the Protectorates, but I understand that a dentist recently visited them, and there is at least one member of the medical staff who has a practical knowledge of dentistry. We have received no complaints or suggestions on the subject from His Majesty's Commissioners.

  Factory Inspection—Chief Inspector's Report.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department at what date in the present session the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops will be in the hands of Members.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. COCHRANE,): The preparation of this Report involves heavy personal labour for the Chief Inspector. Important though it is, it cannot be done at the expense of other matters requiring his attention, upon which there are just now particularly urgent demands, especially; in connection with the inquiry into the draft regulations for Docks. He will, however, endeavour—though it is impossible to make any promise, to have the Report ready by about the same date as last year, i.e., early in June.

  The Budget.
  MR. McCRAE (): I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state whether the Budget will be introduced on an early day after the Easter Vacation.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): Yes, Sir.
  MR. McCRAE: Can the right hon. Gentleman name the date?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

  Reduction of the War Debt.
  MR. McCRAE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can

  619
  state whether the Exchequer Balances as at 1st April, 1902, included a sum of £4,029,000, the unexpended balance of the £60,000,000 Consol Loan of 1901 issued to meet war expenditure, and whether it is now proposed to apply a sum of £4,000,000 out of the present balances in reduction of war indebtedness.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member has only taken one year. If he had taken the whole war period, the amount borrowed in excess would have been less than he states. I do not propose to anticipate any information which seems properly to belong to my Budget statement.
  MR. McCRAE: Is it not the case that in 1902 there was £4,000,000 of borrowed money in the Exchequer which is still there?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have answered the Question, and that answer gives a more accurate view of the facts than is put forward in the Question. You must await the Budget speech for further information.

  Customs Regulations for Re Export of Foreign Goods.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that re-exporters of foreign goods which have been imported into the United Kingdom are now required to furnish to the Board of Customs particulars of the countries from which those goods were originally consigned, he will say whether any remonstrances against this measure, on the ground that it involves the disclosure of trade secrets has been received by himself or by the President of the Board of Trade from chambers of commerce or from others; and, if so, will he say whether he will withdraw this order.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The name of the country whence the goods were originally consigned is required to be furnished in the case of all goods imported into the United Kingdom and of all such goods which are subsequently exported. This requirement was brought
  620
  into operation on 1st January last, at the request of the Manchester and other chambers of commerce, and no difficulty appears to be experienced by the majority of traders in complying with it. Remonstrances have been received by the Customs from a few firms only, and arrangements are now being made whereby traders who buy foreign goods and sell them to other firms for export may communicate direct to that department the required information as to the countries whence the goods were originally consigned, and thus obviate disclosure of the particulars to their customers. Such information is for statistical purposes only and is treated us confidential.

  Licence Duties.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (): I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, before proposing to continue or extend the existing taxation on commodities used by the poorer classes in this country, he will cause an inquiry to be made into the duties on publicans' licences, with a view of making them more nearly equivalent to the monopoly value of such licences.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that any further inquiry into this matter is required.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to give notice that I will call attention to the gross inadequacy and unfairness of the existing scale of licensing duties.

  Clerks to Surveyors of Taxes.
  MR. NANNETTI (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government or the Board of Inland Revenue have at present in contemplation any scheme for the improvement of the position of the clerks to the surveyors of taxes; and whether, if any such scheme is in contemplation, he could state the nature of it and what class of clerk it affects.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY or THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): No further changes in the position of the clerks to surveyors of taxes are contemplated at present.

  National Telephone Company—Govern- ment Right of Purchase.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is empowered, under the licence granted to the National Telephone Company, to take possession of that company's system on the 31st of December, 1904, by giving six months notice from June next; and whether any negotiations are proceeding between the Post Office and the Company with a view to exercising this option.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): The Postmaster-General has power, under the licence granted to the National Telephone Company, to purchase the company's business on 3lst December, 1904, by giving six months notice, the price being settled, in case of difference, by arbitration. I am considering whether steps should be initiated, under this power or otherwise, for taking over the Company's system, and some preliminary discussion has taken place with the Company. I am prepared to undertake that the House shall, by Select Committee or otherwise, have an opportunity of considering any proposed agreement with the Company before it becomes binding.

  Pay in the Post Office.
  CAPTAIN NORTON (): I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he can state what regulations, if any, exist concerning deferred and arrested increments of pay; whether an arrest of increment for one, two, or three years is irrecoverable under any circumstances; whether it involves a loss of seniority on pay and holiday sheets; and whether such regulations as exist apply equally to barrier increments and to all classes of Post Office servants.
  LORD STANLEY: The regulations respecting the allowance of ordinary annual increments to civil servants are contained in the Order in Council of the 29th of November, 1898. In paragraph 20 of that order it is prescribed that no increment can be allowed to an officer unless a certificate can be furnished by his immediate
  622
  superior officer that during the preceding year his conduct has been approved; and that if such certificate cannot be given when the increment falls due the grant may be deferred until the officer shall have completed a continuous period of twelve months approved service, when the increment will become payable from the date of such certificate. It is also laid down that if the officer's conduct shall continue satisfactory the head of the Department may, after a certain interval, and subject to the consent of the Treasury, increase the officer's salary to an amount not exceeding that at which it would have stood if no increment had been withheld. These regulations apply to all civil servants. The deferment of an ordinary increment does not affect an officer's seniority in any way. As regards the classes in the Post Office where an efficiency bar exists in the scale of pay, an increment which would carry an officer over the bar can be allowed only on a certificate from the superior officer that the officer is fully qualified to perform the highest duties of his class.

  Taff Vale Railway.
  MR. BELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes at an early date to issue a rule requiring the use of brake vans behind trains running between Penarth Junction and Penarth Dock on the Taff Vale Railway.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The hon. Member's Question appears to be based on a misapprehension. A rule already exists requiring brake vans or other suitable vehicles to be provided on all trains working upon running lines beyond station limits. The Taff Vale Railway Company have applied for an exemption from this Rule for portions of their line, including the section mentioned by the hon. Member, and the Railway and Canal Commissioners to whom the application was referred have held that the company is entitled to some exemption. A draft Rule giving effect to the views of the Commissioners is being prepared and will shortly be published.

  Grants for Training of Pupil Teachers.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education when the additional grants promised for the training of pupil teachers will come into operation.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): The additional grant will first be payable for the period commencing on 1st August, 1904.

  Education Code.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can sav when the Education Code for 1904–5 will be laid.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I hope the Code for 1904–5 will be laid shortly after Easter.

  Vaccination Exemption Certificates.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state how many certificates of exemption from vaccination were granted during the year ending 31st December, 1903.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): The Returns made to me show the number of certificates of conscientious objection received by the vaccination officers during each year, and this number may be taken as substantially agreeing with the number granted during the year. The Returns for the year 1903 are not quite complete, but the number of certificates of the kind referred to received during the year may be stated approximately as 37,200.

  Scottish Education—Aid Grant.
  MR. BLACK (): I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the method adopted by the Government of distributing the aid grant to schools in Scotland, being the compensatory sum paid to Scotland in respect of the additional grant made last year to English schools, has resulted in Episcopal schools receiving out of that grant a sum
  624
  equivalent to nearly four times the amount per pupil in average attendance and per teacher employed as compared with what is paid in respect of public schools and Roman Catholic schools; whether this result was foreseen by the Government when this method was adopted by them; and whether a more equitable method of distribution will now be adopted.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The general aid grant was distributed under the Minute submitted to Parliament, the conditions of which are absolutely uniform for all classes of schools. The insinuation contained in the hon. Member's Question as to a scheme on the part of the Government to secure a distribution in favour of one particular section of schools is quite unwarranted, and his figures are only brought out by confusing the expenditure under the two branches of the Minute, which have no relation to each other, and then dividing by the numbers of children in average attendance, which is an arithmetical operation of no significance. Under the first section of the Minute, which dealt with special payments to small schools in respect of extra teachers, the public schools received £13,100, the Episcopal schools received £300, while the Roman Catholic schools received £220. The reason of this was that, although a larger number of Roman Catholic schools were eligible, a smaller proportion of these schools fulfilled the conditions as to staff. The great bulk of the grant is paid under Section 2 and is per capita, and of this the Roman Catholic schools received £8,590 while the Episcopal schools received only £1,512. The whole subject of the aid grant, as of all funds devoted to education, will be dealt with in the Bill which I hope to introduce next week.
  MR. BLACK: I shall call attention to this matter later in the day.

  Killarney Roads.
  MR. BOLAND (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether lie is aware that a necessity exists for the construction of a road in the electoral

  625
  division of Maum, near Killarney; and whether, in view of the fact that in April, 1903, its construction was agreed to by the rural district council, can he say what obstacle prevented its being completed.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The road referred to cannot be identified from the description given in the Question, hut if the hon. Member will write to me I will inquire further.

  Portmagee Petty Sessions Clerk.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the recent appointment of petty sessions clerk in the district of Portmagee, county Kerry, which is a purely Irish-speaking district, care was taken to select a man who knew the Irish language.
  MR. WYNDHAM: All the people in this district, with a few exceptions, speak Irish and English. The petty sessions clerk was not required to have a knowledge of Irish. No inconvenience has been caused at any time. An interpreter is always present in the Petty Sessions Court, but his services have been seldom utilised.

  Longford Police Lock-Up.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL (): On behalf of the hon. Member for North Longford, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what has been the result of his inquiries into the sanitary condition of the lock-up for prisoners in the Royal Irish Constabulary barracks at Longford.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Negotiations are proceeding with the landlord of the premises. The matter, it is hoped, will soon be arranged.

  Granard Union Workhouse Master.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Longford I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state on what grounds the Local Government Board for
  626
  Ireland have refused to sanction the recently appointed master of Granard Union; whether, in the case of the appointment of Mr. Leamy by the Local Government Board, no sureties were asked from him by the Local Government Board of any kind; and, if so, will he explain why a different rule is now applied in the case of a master elected by the representatives of the people.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Board has not refused to sanction the recent appointment. The person elected is undergoing a course of training at another work house, and his fitness for the position will shortly be reported upon. It was the guardians who failed to require the late master to furnish sureties.

  Cusack Estate, County Longford.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Longford I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state if any negotiations hive been entered into by the Estates Commissioners for the purchase, with a view to resale to the tenants, of the Cusack Estate, in town-land of Knocka-Tarry, county Longford; and, if not, whether, as negotiations for the purchase of this estate have been begun on both sides, he would recommend the Commissioners to offer their services towards a speedy completion of same.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The matter is in the same position as when I replied to the hon. Member's previous Question of the 3rd instant.†

  Eyrecourt Convent School.
  MR. ROCHE (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of the delay in issuing the new plans for building Irish national schools; whether he is aware that inconvenience is caused in Eyrecourt Convent by this delay; and whether steps will be immediately taken so as to enable the managers to have this necessary work proceeded with at once.
  †See Debates, cxxxi., 69.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member's similar Question of the 15th instant.
  MR. ROCHE: What was the answer?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The matter is under consideration and no decision has yet been arrived at.

  Blessington Steam Trams.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of persons killed, and the number injured, by the steam trams from Terenure, Dublin to Blessington, since the trams commenced to run over that line; also how many animals were killed, and how many injured, during the same period; the damage done to property situated on either side of the line by sparks from engines and other causes attributable to the service; and what was the total amount of compensation paid to claimants.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Fifteen persons were killed and four injured. Thirty-nine animals were killed, 'there were fourteen cases of burning. Compensation to the amount of £1,100 has been paid to claimants.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: In view of the large number of accidents on this line, will the right hon. Gentleman order some inquiry?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I should like to have notice of that Question.

  Care of Harmless Imbeciles in Ireland.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the success of the system of family care of harmless imbeciles on the Continent and in Scotland, he will introduce a Bill to legalise family care in Ireland of such persons.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I replied on the 11th February last to a similar Question put by the hon. Member for St. Patrick's Division.†
  †See (4) Debates, cxxix., 1015.

  Defaulting Contractors.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received a communication from the County Council of North Tipperary drawing his attention to the present state of the law, debarring county surveyors from immediately dealing with defaulting contractors, inasmuch as the county surveyor must wait for a general meeting of the county council to enable him to serve a ten days' notice, whereas, under the Grand Jury Act, the then county surveyors were entitled to serve such notices at their own discretion; and if he will consider the recommendation of the county council to have the law amended by restoring the former practice.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir. The suggested change in the law is desirable, and will be dealt with when a suitable opportunity arises.

  Mullawornia Evicted Tenant.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Longford I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland on what grounds the application of Francis Yorke, of Mullawornia, county Longford, for restoration as an evicted tenant, has been rejected by the Estates Commissioners.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The eviction took place in 1872, and the case, consequently, is outside the scope of Section 2 (d) of the Act of last year.

  Marlborough Street Training College.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant the two Returns relative to the Marlborough Street Training College, standing on to-day's Paper.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Returns will be prepared and communicated to the hon. Member. I hardly think they are of sufficient importance to lay on the Table as Parliamentary Papers.
  The Returns are as follows:—
  Marlborough Street Training College (Roman Catholic Students): Return

  629
  showing the number of Roman Catholic students who completed a two years course of training in Marlborough Street Training College in each year from 1893 to 1903 both inclusive, and the number of Roman Catholics so trained for two years in Marlborough Street Training College who on the conclusion of their course of training were employed as principal or assistant teachers in National schools in Ireland in each year from 1893 to 1903 both inclusive; the figures to distinguish in each case between those who obtained permanent employment and those who were engaged only as substitutes in a temporary way.
  Marlborough Street Training College (Students trained): Return showing the number of students who completed a two years course of training in Marlborough Street Training College in each year from 1893 to 1903 both inclusive; the number of students so trained for two years in Marlborough Street Training College who, on the conclusion of their course of training, were employed as principal or assistant teachers in National schools in Ireland in each year from 1893 to 1903, both inclusive. The figures to distinguish in each case between those who obtained permanent employment and those who were engaged only as substitutes in a temporary way.

  Irish Auditor's Surcharges.
  MR. CULLINAN (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Ellis, Local Government auditor, has surcharged the Urban Council of Tipperary in sums of £37, £53, and £69 16s. 1d. in respect of a building contract and arrears of rates; that the councillors so surcharged took proceedings by certiorari to have them set aside; that the Court of King's Bench decided the auditor had no jurisdiction to make such surcharges; that he exceeded his duty in the matter, and set them aside; that the ratepayers are held to be liable not only for their own costs but the costs of the auditor as well; and whether, under the circumstances, the auditor being an official of the Local Government
  630
  Board, provision will be made to indemnify the ratepayers against the costs incurred in quashing these illegal surcharges.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The facts are correctly stated. The persons aggrieved by the surcharges sought redress in the Court of King's Bench and did not appeal to the Local Government Board. The Court did not award the appellants their costs and they must abide by the decision of the Court. The Board has no power to remit the costs, as suggested.
  MR. CULLLNAN: Is not the Local Government Board responsible for the acts of the auditors?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Do I understand the council did not appeal in the first case to the Local Government Board?
  MR. WYNDHAM: That is so.
  MR. MURPHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this auditor has been surcharging people all over Ireland?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Bog Poisoning in County Down.
  MR. WOOD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if complaint has been made of the destruction of dogs by poisoning in Ballynahinch, county Down; whether any of the offenders have been discovered; and if any and what prosecutions have been instituted.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Complaint has been made. The police have instituted careful inquiries, but have not detected the offenders. The matter is receiving their special attention.

  Ballindine Police Barracks.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Mayo I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Lord Oranmore is the landlord of the police barracks in Ballindine, county Mayo; whether, for a

  631
  number of years, the police authorities were regularly paying him a yearly rent; whether he has demanded an increase of nearly 50 per cent., and that, as a protest, the police are about leaving; and, if so, whether he will see that they will not be allowed to go into a house from which another tenant was evicted until after the introduction of the promised legislation for tenants in towns.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The landlord has asked for an increased rent for the barrack. It has not been decided that the police shall leave the existing barrack, but inquiries are being made with a view to ascertain what other suitable houses are available. The concluding inquiry is also raised in a subsequent Question.

  Quilka Farm, County Cavan.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: On behalf on the hon. Member for South Mayo I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a farm of land, known as the Quilka Farm, in the townland of Quilka, county Cavan, is at present in the Land Judge's Court; that it has been advertised for letting for a period of seven years, with the right to purchase; and that the farm had been in the landlord's hands; and, if so, whether, seeing that there are a number of tenants in the neighbourhood with poor and small holdings, he will give instructions to the Estates Commissioners to purchase this grazing farm for the purpose of enlarging the holdings of the other tenants.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There is some difficulty in identifying the farm referred to from the information given in the Question. Further inquiry is being made, and perhaps the hon. Member will repeat the Question on Monday.

  Ballinrobe Perjury Charge.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Mayo I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the expenses in connection with the trial of the two policemen who are charged with committing perjury
  632
  at Ballinrobe about the 2nd of February last, must be borne by themselves or by the public; whether these policemen will be put forward at the next assizes in Mayo; and, if not, when will steps be taken to remove from the force entrusted with the protection of the lives and properties of the people, members who lay themselves open to such charges.
  I also beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is' aware that the two policemen stationed at Ballinrobe, county Mayo, j against whom the Attorney-General for Ireland has instituted a prosecution for perjury, are still doing ordinary duty in Ballinrobe, and that they have not been interfered with by their authorities since the Crown decided on prosecuting them; and, if so, will he say whether it is his intention to have them immediately arrested or bound over to appear when necessary, or at least to remove them from the police force until the charge against them is either proved or their acquittal obtained from a jury of their countrymen.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The two constables were suspended on the 14th instant. The procedure, in accordance with the ordinary practice in such cases, will be by summons. The accused must in the first instance bear the costs of their defence. Whether the Crown will ultimately contribute to the expense will depend on the issue of the trial. The other portions of the Questions seem to assume the guilt of the accused and anticipate the decision of the justices I must decline to answer them.
  MR. KILBRIDE: Will you take steps to see that these two men do not fly from justice?
  [No answer was returned.]
  Subsequently Mr. THOMAS O'DONNELL asked a Question of which notice had been sent to the Chief Secretary.
  MR. SPEAKER: It can only be asked if it deals with an urgent matter of public importance.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: It does that.
  The hon. Member then proceeded to ask the Question, which had reference to the nature of the evidence to be called, and inquired why certain magistrates had not been summoned.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That obviously is a Question of which, notice must be given.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND (): In order to show the urgency of the matter, may I point out that the case is to be heard next Monday and we have no opportunity of putting a Question before then, unless we do it to-day.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must confess that the matter, although it may arouse great interest in the locality, does not seem to me to amount to one of urgent public importance.

  Ballindine Police Barracks.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Mayo I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been 'called to the action of the police in Ballindine, county Mayo, in urging on the landlord of a house in that town the desirability of evicting a tenant named Carey, with a view to turning it into a police barrack; whether he is aware that Carey had been in possession of the house for over thirty years, that he had paid in rent over £400, that he was evicted although he had paid his rent and was willing to continue paying it; and, if so, whether he will see that the police authorities will not be allowed to carry into effect the eviction of this man.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The statement in the first part of the Question is without foundation. Carey was evicted from the house two years ago, but under what circumstances I am unable to say. It has since been occupied by the owner, and inquiries are being made as to its suitability for a police barrack.

  Irish College of Science Staff.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when it is intended to place the staff of the School of Art, College of Science, and Museums in Ireland on the settled terms of wages already granted to the attendants of the English and Scotch Museums, and also granted to the attendants of the National Library in Dublin.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The matter is under the consideration of the new Department. Detailed inquiries are being made, and it will be some time before a decision can be arrived at.

  Annaly Estate, Longford.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Longford: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to state whether he is aware that, on 1st June, 1901. Patrick Farrell, of Lismacmanus, county Longford, was informed by Mr. J. M. Ross Todd, solicitor for the receiver of the Annaly Estate, county Longford, that the Land Commission had sanctioned the advance for the purchase of his holdings at Lismacmanus and Carrownphull; and whether he can state the cause of the delay in the issue of the vesting order in this man's case.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This question has been referred to the Land Judge's Court, but so far I have not received a report on the statements in question. I regret, therefore, to have to ask the hon. Member to again postpone the Question.

  Irish Agricultural Department Clerks.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that certain clerks in the Irish Agricultural Department who have up to twelve years service, and whose salaries are approximately £90 a year, were recently notified, in response to an application for advancement, that such application could not be entertained in view of an intimation from the Treasury in February, 1903, to the effect that the time had come when the recurrent applications should cease, and

  635
  the sanctioned scales should be left to their operation; will he state whether the communication conveying this refusal was brought under the notice of the secretary; and will he say whether the Treasury intimation referred to relates only to the clerks mentioned; and, if not, whether he can explain why, while refusing to submit to the Treasury the application of the latter, recurrent applications have since been made for increases in the salaries of better paid officials of the Department; and whether he will see that such interpretations are not put upon Treasury communications as may act to the detriment of any of the Department's employees.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The clerks referred to in the first part of the Question were employed in a temporary capacity only before their appointment, within the past few years, to the permanent establishment. In the former capacity their services were determinable at a week's notice and they had no prospects of advancement. They are now pensionable officers, and their promotion carried with it other substantial advantages. The Department considered their further application, but felt unable to recommend it to the Treasury. The decision arrived at was the decision of the Department, and it would be entirely subversive of official discipline to discuss the grounds upon which it was come to, or admit or deny that it was brought to the notice of the secretary. The Department must use its own discretion as to the communications it may make to the Treasury on behalf of members of the staff. Each case is dealt with on its merits, and there is no foundation for the suggestion that it acts to the detriment of any of its employees.

  Irish Sub-Postmasters.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will say how may sub-postmasters are employed in Ireland; what are their hours of duty; what salaries and commissions do they receive; what rental allowance do they get every year; what are their prospects of promotion to higher branches of the service; what is the proportion of the total post office revenue earned by sub-postmasters; and whether he intends
  636
  to take any steps to improve the position of this body of public servants.
  LORD STANLEY: There are about 2,680 county and 205 town sub-offices in Ireland. The former are usually open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., and the latter from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. The salaries and value of the commissions vary according to the business done. No special allowance in aid of rent is given under the ordinary circumstances. Sub-postmasters are not as a rule qualified for advancement to higher branches of the service, but occasionally they obtain promotion to postmasterships. I am unable to say what proportion of the total post office revenue is derived from sub-offices. I have recently obtained Treasury sanction for improving, in certain directions, the remunerations of sub-postmasters, especially at the smaller offices, and instructions are being issued upon the subject.

  Nenagh Postman's Pension.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he has received a communication from the board of guardians of Nenagh Union with reference to the case of a man named Edward Doheny, formerly a postman at Nenagh, who became insane and was committed to Clonmel Lunatic Asylum, being awarded a pension of 8s. per week; whether a deduction of 1s. per week has been made by his Department on the grounds that the Government make a contribution towards the maintenance of pauper lunatics; and, if so, whether, having regard to the circumstances of this case, that Doheny has left a delicate wife and a family of nine helpless children, he will allow the full pension of 8s. per week, and not leave them a burden on the ratepayers to the extent of 5s. per week out-door relief.
  LORD STANLEY: The communication referred to by the hon. Member has been received from the board of guardians of the Nenagh Union, and it is the fact that a deduction of 4s. a week is made from the pension of Edward Doheny, late postman at Nenagh. The deduction is rendered necessary by the provisions of the Superannuation Act,

  637
  1887, and I regret that, in these circumstances, it is not possible to pay the pension in full to Mrs. Doheny.

  Stamp Office for Edgeworthstown.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, for the benefit and advantage of the public in Edgeworthstown, he will direct that an office for the sale of Inland Revenue and other stamps be opened in that town.
  LORD STANLEY: I will inquire and give the hon. Member an answer as soon a possible.

  Interest on Irish Local Loans.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Longford, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the grounds upon which it has been decided to increase the interest on loans to public bodies in Ireland, as outlined in a recent circular of the Local Government Board for Ireland.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The recent increase in the rates of interest applies to all loans made out of the Local Loans Fund on the security of local rates, in Great Britain as well as in Ireland. The money required for the purpose of these loans has to be raised by the issue of Local Loans Stock; and, under present conditions, the price at which the stock can be issued would not enable the previous rates of interest to be continued without loss to the Local Loans Fund.

  Irish Railways—Passenger Cars.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Longford, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the interest of the health and comfort of passengers on the Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland, he is prepared to recommend the directors of that company to have cushioned seats supplied to their third class carriages, as is the case on all the principal railway lines in Ireland.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir; I am not prepared to interfere with the
  638
  discretion of the railway company in this matter.

  Trinity College, Dublin—Dr. Traill's Appointment.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury on whose advice was the prerogative of the Crown exercised infilling up the appointment to the Provostship of Trinity College, Dublin; and under what Vote can the advice so given be subjected to Parliamentary comment and criticism.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The responsibility rests wholly with me, and it is the privilege of the hon. Gentleman to move the reduction of my salary if he disapproves of the advice which I have given.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Was the appointment made in recognition of Dr. Traill's eminent services to education or was it made in recognition of his services to the Landlords' Convention.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not sure that it is a good precedent to cross-examine a Minister of the Crown as to the ground of the advice that ho has given, but I may say that Dr. Traill's connection with the Landlords' Convention never entered the head either of myself or of anybody else in connection with the appointment.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Are we entitled to assume that the appointment of Dr. Traill gives any indication of the view of the Government on University education.
  [No answer was returned.]
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLindicated that he would raise the question on the Vote for the salary of the First Lord of the Treasury.

  Duration of Speeches.
  SIR CARNE RASCH (Essex, Chelmsford): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that twelve hon. Members occupied the time of the House for ten hours between them in the debate of Monday last; and whether he

  639
  would give facilities during the course of this session for moving a Resolution on the subject of duration of speeches.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have caused the report of the debate on Monday last to be analysed, not as regards the arguments, but in reference to time occupied by speakers; and I find that the Leader of the Opposition occupied seventy-eight minutes, my right hon. friend seventy-two, and that I was guilty to the extent of fifty-three minutes, leaving 267 minutes for the remaining nine speakers, an average of half an hour each. Some of the nine speeches occupied less than half an hour, while others were very distinctly over half an hour. I can only express my regret that so few speakers were able to take part, not so much in regard to that particular debate, for it was on a subject upon which the House was engaged for several nights before, but because I admit that the length of speeches does, and must, exclude from participation in discussion a large number of Members competent to express opinions; and if each of us in his own sphere—I speak as a sinner myself, not as a saint preaching to sinners—if we could—those who have not to expound a policy or deal with a whole policy—confine ourselves to what we conceive to be novel in argument there would be a manifest advantage. I cannot, in the present state of business, promise to give my hon. and gallant friend time for the discussion of this question, and if I did promise, on the average I have just described to the House, only three speakers would be able to express their opinions.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the proper remedy is not Home Rule.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have never denied that Home Rule would get rid of some of the speeches to which we have to listen.

  Cabinet Memoranda.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has yet considered the precedents furnished to him with reference
  640
  to the publication of Cabinet Memoranda; and, if so, whether he has any statement to make modifying his previous decision with regard to the publication of the Memorandum submitted by him to the Cabinet embracing propositions in favour of preferential tariffs and the taxation of food.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in sending mc a letter which he afterwards published in the newspapers. But the precedent to which he referred in that interesting communication was one in which Mr. Forster, in order to verify his statement with regard to a particular conversation alleged to have occurred with the then hon. Member for Clare, read out a Cabinet Memorandum which he had himself prepared for his colleagues. Mr. Gladstone referred to that transaction without expressing either approval or disapproval, and, without saying whether it was right or wrong, it is evidently in quite a different category from the transaction which so exercises the mind of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: Has the right hon. Gentleman refreshed his mind with his own speech on that occasion, on 15th May, 1882, in which he advanced some broad propositions?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I rarely read my own speeches, and I confess I have not done so on the present occasion.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid in that speech the right hon. Gentleman highly approved of Mr. Forster's action.

  Mr. Austin Dobson.
  MR. OSMOND WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the case of a Mr. Austin Dobson, who now receives a pension of £533 6s. 8d. in addition to the sum of £250 from the Civil List-in all £783 6s.8d. or very nearly full pay, his salary on his retirement being £800 a year; and whether he can explain why this gentleman has such a pension.
  In putting the Question the hon. Member said he regretted that, owing

  641
  to an inadvertence, the letter "a" had been placed before Mr. Austin Dobson's name. He had no intention of making this a personal matter. The question was levelled against the principle, or want of principle, on which these pensions were granted.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would be the last man in the House to offer a deliberate insult to one who has been a distinguished Civil servant and is a distinguished man of letters. We shall all accept his disclaimer of the letter "a" with absolute confidence. The course that has been pursued on my responsibility in this matter is one that, I believe, will have the approval of every man interested in English literature. The hon. Gentleman appears to suppose that there is some incompatibility between a Civil Service pension and Civil Service office. That is not so. Mr. Gladstone gave the late Mr. Matthew Arnold, while in full employment and not on a pension, a pension on the Civil List, and I think it was a proper course for Mr. Gladstone to pursue. In the present case, Mr. Austin Dobson, I think immediately after or immediately before this pension was offered to him, left, on grounds of health, the Board of Trade, of which he was a Civil servant. I do not suppose the hon. Gentleman means to suggest that the pension was not deserved by Mr. Austin Dobson's great literary qualifications. It would, if I may say so respectfully, be a condemnation, not of Mr. Austin Dobson, but of the hon. Gentleman's familiarity with recent con-temporary English literature if he was to form an unfavourable judgment of this transaction.
  MR. OSMOND WILLIAMSasked whether this pension was intended only for men who had little or no fixed income and were doing, or had done, good literary work.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman will see, if he looks at the original statute under which the grant is given or at the actual practice of the First Lord of the Treasury, that he has not given anything like a full or accurate account of the mode in which that fund is administered.
  642
  I have had great difficulty in administering it during my tenure of office, but never have I given a pension with less doubt than I gave it in the case of. Mr. Austin Dobson.

  Order of Questions.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLdrew attention to the fact that, owing to the manner in which the Questions had been arranged, several important ones addressed to the Colonial Secretary had not been reached by five minutes to three. Was it not right that Questions of such importance should have a chance of being answered verbally? Why had the Questions to the First Lord of the Treasury been interpolated with those to the Colonial Secretary?
  MR. SPEAKER: The arrangement was made by my direction and with the assent of the First Lord in order to comply with what I understood to be the wish of the House, that the Questions addressed to the First Lord of the Treasury should if possible not be pushed out by the time limit. I directed that those Questions should in future begin not later than fifty-one.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE EASTER HOLIDAYS.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (): I beg to ask what will be the business of next week; when the Easter recess will commence and how long it will last, and when the Budget will be introduced.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot give the House any information as to the actual date on which the Budget will be introduced, but it will not be very long after Easter. I hope the House will allow the Government to take the Committee stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill to-morrow at half-past five o'clock. It could be stopped by an objector, but no debate can in any circumstances take place, and it would be for the general convenience if this necessarily uncontroversial stage could be taken between half-past five and six. If the House will consent to that course, then I should take the Third

643
Reading on Monday. On Tuesday I propose to take the Motion for the adjournment far the holidays, and I see no reason why the holidays should not last until the Tuesday after Easter Tuesday. I cannot be quite sure whether I shall not have to ask the House to meet on Wednesday, but I should like to avoid that contingency if I can do so. The Scotch Education Bill will be introduced on Monday.
MR. LOUGH: What will the business be on Wednesday if the House meet.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot say.
SIR WILFRID LAWSON (): When will the Licensing Bill be introduced.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Soon after Easter, I hope.
AN HON. MEMBER: Will it be before Christmas.

PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHIL- DREN (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 139.]
NEW BILLS.
  STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
  "To grant certificates to Persons in Charge of Steam Engines and Boilers," presented by Mr. John Johnson; supported by Mr. John Wilson (Durham), Mr. Cameron, Mr. Levy, Mr. Jacoby, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Paulton, and Mr. Bell; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 13th April, and to be printed. [Bill 138.]
  BISHOPRICS OE SOUTHWARK AND BIRMINGHAM BILL.
  "To provide for the foundation of Bishoprics of Southwark and Birmingham, and for matters incidental thereto," presented by Mr. A. J. Balfour; supported by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas and Mr. Attorney-General; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 13th April, and to be printed. [Bill 136.]
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
  Ordered, That the proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill and on the Telegraph (Money) Bill have precedence this day of the Committee of Supply.—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
SIR WALTER FOSTER ()said he desired to call attention to the very grave condition of affairs existing in Johannesburg. The answer he had received to a Question disclosed a very serious condition of mortality and spread of plague in that city, and as this affected the prosperity of a great industry in Johannesburg and the health of the colonies, he thought it should receive some attention on the present occasion. In reply to his Question the Colonial Secretary had stated that thirty deaths had occurred out of thirty-eight persons affected, showing that the plague was of a most virulent type. Since then he noticed from the papers that deaths had been occurring at the same terrible rate. They were told that no less than fifty-eight cases had occurred amongst the black population, and forty-seven had died, whilst among the whites there were three cases, which had been followed by death in every instance. Once this plague got a hold in a community like Johannesburg, or in the compounds where Asiatics were kept, it became a very difficult matter to deal with. Only this year at the end of February the whole of South Africa seemed to be free from plague. In Cape Colony last year they had 135 cases of plague, of which 117 occurred in the first six months of 1903, while during the last six months there were only eighteen cases which showed that under careful administration in Cape Colony the disease had been practically eradicated. Now this outbreak had suddenly occurred in Johannesburg, and he thought this was a condition of things which deserved the very serious consideration of the Government and the most earnest attention

645
of the Colonial Secretary in order that the progress of the disease might be speedily arrested. With regard to the origin of the disease, he found that it appeared in Johannesburg suddenly, after a past history which would indicate that the disease had been got under in Cape Colony and was therefore not expected to reappear. How had the disease come there? Had this disease been brought in through the importation of Asiatic labour? At all events, the disease broke out in the Indian location, among the natives who were especially liable to the malady. Any gathering of Indians at Johannesburg offered a very suitable ground for the development of the disease. He wished to know if the disease broke out among any newly imported Indians in connection with the mining industry, and whether the locality had been recently recruited by the importation of fresh workers from India. These people had been kept in a portion of Johannesburg which was an insanitary area. That would indicate that the selection of a location for the Indians had not been made with all the care that should have been shown. They had had some experience of the death of their soldiers in South Africa through the choice of insanitary camps, and if the same thing went on they would have a heavy mortality amongst the Asiatics. He understood that the affected area was now in the hands of the town council and that these people had been removed to another district, which confirmed the view that the district was not a very salubrious one where these Asiatics were kept.
There was another point which indicated the gravity of the position. They were told that 360 Indians would be removed at once from the infected area to a site eight miles away, where they would be isolated. That indicated a wise sanitary precaution on the part of the local authorities, and if carried out with careful isolation the removal of these people might have some effect in putting a stop to the spread of the malady. There was a suspicious circumstance to which he would refer, which arose out of a Question put to the Colonial Secretary by an hon. Member about the mortality amongst the people working in the mines. They
646
were then told that the mortality was largely due to a form of pneumonia coming on after influenza. As this outbreak of plague was of the pneumonic variety, he was not at all clear that some of the heavy mortality amongst the miners might not have been due to a disguised form of this plague and might have existed in these locations some months, thus producing the heavy mortality that had occurred. It was a point that ought to be looked into by the Colonial Secretary in order to prevent, in future, any possible overlooking of this disease in its milder forms as might have happened in this instance. The outbreak had been a startling one. In a place hundreds of miles from any port, where before there had been no outbreak at all, they had an epidemic which gave them a sad record of thirty deaths in the first few days. That was a sudden and startling outbreak of a terrible malady. In the past history of South Africa this disease had not penetrated north to the Transvaal, the most northern place being Durban. If there had been any importation of coolies they must have come in through one of the ports, and they may have been responsible for the outbreak of the disease. He wanted to know if the Colonial Secretary could explain the cause of this serious outbreak, which might have occurred through persons imported within about a week of the outbreak. He would suggest that in any regulations made by the Colonial Secretary or the local advisers in future, if they had to draw a labour supply from Asiatic regions, no labourer imported into South Africa should be allowed to mix with the other labourers until he had been isolated for at least a week before joining the gangs with which he had to work, for otherwise they might introduce fresh sources of this fatal complaint.
He wanted to point out further that this disease breaking out in this way was causing a very serious panic in Johannesburg. The people were stated to be leaving in large numbers and the white population was frightened. The disease had already spread to Pretoria and would probably spread throughout the Transvaal to the Orange River Colony and to every part of South Africa. That must cause a very great

647
disturbance of economic conditions. They had been lately discussing the condition of labour in South Africa from different points of view. They had criticised it from the moral point of view and also from the political point of view, but he was now bringing the matter before the House purely from a public health point of view. He wished to point out that the Colonial Secretary was now importing labour into South Africa under conditions which were likely to be dangerous to the public health. If the right hon. Gentleman carried out his Ordinance for importing cheap labour from China, a country in which plague had its home, which was the fons et origo mali of the modern plague, it might be the ruin of South Africa. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider carefully whether more harm would not be done by the introduction of dangers of this kind than by a restricted supply of labour. He asked that in the new regulations the right hon. Gentleman should insist as far as possible that no port infected with plague should be a source of supply for labour in South Africa. If this was neglected he would add to the other difficulties in South Africa a great economic difficulty, and this question would turn out to be one not of cheap labour, but of very dear labour, because, with conditions like those prevailing in Johannesburg, which might be made permanent, or which might continue for months or years, an economic situation would arise which would be serious for the industries carried on in that part of His Majesty's dominions. It was a question which, from all points of view, would have to be considered very gravely.
Could the Colonial Secretary tell the House the source from which the plague was introduced, and whether it might have been introduced by the recently recruited Indian labour, and carried northwards by coolies from China or India, or was it introduced by rats? It might have another less suspected source. It might be carried by pigs, fowls, turkeys, ducks, or dogs, or even cats, which sometimes carried this disease. Rats were the common carriers, but the other animals he had mentioned often carried the disease in a more insidious way than rats did. For weeks they presented no symptom of the disease whatever, al-
648
though capable of infecting the locality, I but rats did present evidence of it very quickly. When one saw dead rats it was an indication that there was probably plague in the locality. From any of these causes the disease might have been introduced, and he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could give any information as to the origin of this deadly outbreak at Johannesburg. He asked whether the Colonial Secretary would take care not only to have the persons connected with the location in which the disease had broken out properly isolated at the place which had been selected eight miles distant, but also to have other Asiatics working at Johannesburg carefully looked after and isolated on the first appearance of suspicious symptoms. In carrying out the importation of labour under the Ordinance and the regulations which, he believed, had yet to be completed, would the right hon. Gentleman take care as far as possible that no labour would be imported from any district where the plague was raging? Only by drawing labour from uncontaminated ports could the right hon. Gentleman keep South Africa safe from a disease which otherwise was likely to be very costly not only to life, but also to the Treasury of the Colony. If he proceeded on these lines the cheap labour might be less harmful than if he neglected them. His own opinion was that the introduction of Chinese labour was an unwise policy, but if the right hon. Gentleman neglected the precautions indicated he would make it not only an unwise policy, but a disastrous policy for the colonies into which these Asiatics were imported. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to state whether he would take steps as far as possible to carry out the suggestions he had made in the interest of the public health of the Transvaal, and the safe working of the mines.
MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid he should like to know whether the Colonial Secretary had taken fully into consideration in connection with the supply of the shortage of labour in South Africa, the fact that there were in our Indian Empire millions of poverty-stricken people, including hundreds of thousands of unemployed. Was it perfectly true, as the right hon.

649
Gentleman said the other night, that the Indian coolies would not work in mines? He might tell the right hon. Gentleman that he had gone down coal mines, iron mines, and the Mysore gold mines in India, which were all worked successfully with coolie labour. He submitted that there would be no difficulty whatever in obtaining from India all the labour required in South Africa if the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to have it introduced as free labour. As to the question of the plague, he had, during his travels, seen both Chinese and Indians dying around him like flies, and he could only say, that much as they deplored the outbreak of the disease in South Africa, some good might come out of it, because he was sanguine enough to hope that when this got noised abroad in China it would prevent the Chinese from offering themselves for indentured labour in South Africa. In any case there was no question that the Colonial Secretary had taken a most tremendous responsibility on his shoulders in making the proposals he had made in regard to indentured labour in South Africa. They were told that various safeguards were provided by the regulations. During his travels in China he employed over a hundred natives for weeks, and he could not speak too highly of their patience, industry, and reliability. They were infinitely too good to be consigned to anything like the position of bond-slaves in South Africa. The House had been told that when they got to Hong-Kong they could be freed from their bargain, and that they could return to their homes at their own cost. That was an absolutely hypocritical protection. It was stated also that they could return from South Africa at their own cost, and by giving back to the employers the cost incurred in taking them there. The Colonial Secretary must know that was an absolutely unworkable condition to impose on men who wished to relieve themselves from a position of serfdom in South Africa. The right hon. Gentleman had said that Chinamen would be able to earn twelve or fifteen times more in South Africa than in their own country, but there was no guarantee of a minimum wage. Was the Colonial Secretary prepared to introduce into the regulations a stipulation with respect to a minimum wage to be paid to the Chinamen? Was
650
he also prepared to state that in advertising the conditions of engagement in the Chinese villages he would make known the real facts as to the dangerous and deleterious nature of the employment they were asked to go to? Would he tell them that a man could only live seven years following that employment? Would he tell them that the air in mines was filled with minute particles of quartz and that, unless they, like the Kaffirs, had six months freedom from that labour out of every twelve months to recruit, they would at the end of three years return to China doomed men?
Another consideration which should be kept in view was the effect which this policy would have on the minds of the Chinese nation. They had their secret societies and great labour guilds, and information in regard to indentured labour in South Africa would spread like wildfire, creating a bad feeling towards people belonging to the western nations. The cost of living was immensely greater in South Africa than in China, and unless the mine-owners provided rations for the wives and families as well as the men, those who accepted engagements would be infinitely worse off than they would be in China. The general standard of comfort and prosperity in India was decidedly lower than in China. If there was an opportunity in South Africa of giving work to the unemployed, surely the preference, in the first instance, should be given to English-speaking people, and if enough could not be got to meet the requirements, Indians should be engaged. They were told that white men would not work in the mines in South Africa. The mines in Western Australia were worked exclusively by white labour, and why should not the higher grade mines in South Africa be worked in that way? The native blacks or coolies from India could be employed in the lower grade mines which otherwise, perhaps, could not be worked at all. He admired the Colonial Secretary as one of the best sportsmen we had in this country, but he would ask him whether he thought he was playing the game fairly in respect of these Chinese. These poor Chinese would be obtained by procurers, who would be paid at so much per head for inducing them to go to South Africa. The coolies

651
would fall into the hands of the procurers financially, and would be brought at the opportune moment to the recruiting station. There they would say that they understood everything and agreed to everything. He contended that it was absolutely impossible that this large number of Chinamen could be brought to understand all the conditions of their contract before they were taken away from their homes. That was unfair to these men. He understood that the coolies were to have the option of going back to their homes when they reached Hong-Kong. He asked the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary whether the interest of these unfortunate men should not be safeguarded to the extent that wherever there was a British Consul or Vice-Consul full explanation would be given to them of the terms and conditions of their contract, in addition to the safeguards to be taken at Hong-Kong. He held that it was our duty, as lovers of justice and humanity and of free labour, not to leave any doubt whatever in the mind of every one of these Chinese that the full facts of the case had been made known to them. He did not think, however, that that was humanly possible.
The Colonial Secretary said that the term slavery applied to them was untrue; but if the right hon. Gentleman were unfortunate enough to be compelled to enter into a binding engagement to give his labour in a foreign country which he knew nothing about, and to be compelled to live there in a compound out of which lie could not pass without a permit, which need not be granted, he would find whether that was slavery or not—it mattered not whether it was for three years or for life. It was said that whom the gods wished to destroy they first demented. That, to his mind, seemed to be the case with the Government on this Chinese labour question. Did the Government think that the democracy of this country were so dead to every sense of justice, humanity, and human freedom that they would tolerate an Ordinance of the character the right hon. Gentleman had introduced? He desired to ask the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he could give any further information as to the Tibet Mission? The House was entitled to it when re-
652
gard was had to the fact that His Majesty's Government and the Indian Government were jointly responsible for it. This expedition had been sent out and had arrived at a point where it could not advance for months on account of the cold and wet season. That was only another example of the want of foresight on the part of the Government; and the House was entitled to have some further information as to the actual situation in Tibet. He hoped also that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India would not omit putting in a word in favour of the enormous multitudes of unemployed coolies in India, and that these would be able to obtain some labour in South Africa on terms and conditions not destructive, of human freedom and the lights of free labour.
He would like to ask the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs what steps were being taken by the Government to safeguard British trade in the treaty port of Niu-Chwang. The noble Lord said that that treaty port could not be neutralised as it was within the sphere of the war; but he saw that a strong protest had been made by the American Consul in Niu-Chwang who had asked that if the gunboat was withdrawn from there it should be replaced by a man-of-war. Had a similar protest and request been made by the British Consul; or had any representations been made by the British commercial community in Niu-Chwang, which was the only treaty port open to British commerce in Manchuria? That trade amounted to £3,000,000 sterling a year. The port of Niu-Chwang ought never to have been occupied by Russia alone, but by the allied forces. What steps were the Government taking to protect British interests and property there? The hon. Gentleman said that the railway from Shan-hai-Kwan to Niu-Chwang and Sin-min-ting was a Chinese railway. As if that was news to the House and the world. The Chinese Government were under treaty obligation to properly protect that railway so that the net receipts should be given to satisfy the claims of the British bondholders. Hail the Government taken the necessary steps to press on the

653
Chinese Government that they must not allow that railway to fall into Russian hands? There was also the question of the Russian gunboat at Shanghai He wanted to know what representations had been made in regard to that to the Russian or Chinese Governments. Was it not almost an act of war for a Russian gunboat to remain in the great commercial centre of Shanghai, which was neutral territory? He also noticed that a strong protest had come from the Russian Government to the Chinese Government because the latter had advanced troops beyond the Great Wall, although that was in Chinese territory and the Chinese Government were under no obligation to consult the Russian Government about it. He was glad to know that the United States Government had taken action to secure, if possible, the neutrality of China and that the integrity of the Chinese Empire should not be violated either by Russia or Japan. Had the British Government acted in any way in concert with the Government of the United States in regard to this matter, and with what result? Had any arrangement been arrived at, or any pledge been given by Russia and Japan not to violate neutrality of China proper? He had heard that Russian troops had been marched into what was known as China proper.
DR. HUTCHINSON ()said he had some claim to speak on this Chinese question, for he was the only Member of the House who had ever had charge of Chinese coolies. At one time in his wild career he had charge of a steamship—he meant medical charge—he was not quite qualified yet to take charge of the Channel Fleet. On that occasion there were on board a large number of Chinese coolies who were going back to Hong-Kong. He thoroughly endorsed what the hon. Member for Barnsley had said as to the good qualities of the Chinese. He had nothing but good to say about them, so far as that experience went. He only wished to contradict the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary as to the strength of the lungs of these coolies. The right hon. Gentleman said that the lungs of the natives of India and China were made of harder material than those of Europeans, and were not
654
acted upon by the dust from the drills in the mines.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): I said no such thing.
DR. HUTCHINSONsaid he included Kaffirs with the natives of India and China. His experience was that there was no race in the world which was more liable to disease than the Chinese. They had no resisting power. Look at their diet. It consisted of rice and water and a little opium. [An HON. MEMBER: And vegetables.] The ordinary Chinese, coolies did not get much in the way of vegetables when on board, ship. Their resistance to disease was very small, and nothing astonished him more than to see a Chinaman a very little ill in the morning and in the evening he was dead. It was very important that all that should be considered. The Colonial Secretary was like a reckless engine driver who was running full steam ahead without recognising the red lights of danger in his path. The appearance of the plague in South Africa was a red light indicating danger. What would happen if with tens of thousands of Asiatics shut up in compounds a case of plague occurred? Would that be calculated to improve the work of the whites in South Africa? The outbreak was, it seemed to him, a dispensation of providence to stop the hurry in which this proposal was being rushed through. In his opinion it was essential that every Chinaman should be medically examined before he left his own country, and also on his arrival in South Africa. They ought to be, so to speak, "vetted." He hoped the Government would be able to give information with reference to the officials who would be chosen to select the sites for the compounds. He had his faith shaken in the Ministers who were responsible for the treatment of British soldiers in South Africa; and he asked for an assurance that a competent man would be appointed to select the sites of the compounds and also to look after the sanitation of the compounds. Plague was caught through abrasions of the skin which were very likely to occur to men working in the mines; and if the

655
plague broke out on a compound it would be very difficult to prevent it from spreading to the white population.
Mr. LYTTELTONsaid that he was personally, and the Government were also indebted to the two high authorities who had addressed the House. He was sorry that owing to the recent outbreak of plague in Johannesburg he had not been able to inform himself on the Questions which the hon. Gentlemen had perfect right to ask. A telegram had been sent to Lord Milner which he had answered as fully as he could; but on the immediate Questions asked by the two hon. Gentlemen he had not received any immediate assistance from Lord Milner. Of course he would have to take the best medical advice he could before he attempted to make any proper reply to the Questions which were so rightly put to him. He could, however, give the hon. Member for the Rye Division a reassurance that a medical officer would examine each coolie in China before he was embarked, and that a superintendent would accompany each ship to discharge the duty of looking after the health of the coolies. No ship would be allowed to leave without having a superintendent on board. Then there would be vaccination and a most careful examination of the health of the coolies, and as far as human precautions could be taken they would be taken. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ilkeston Division asked what was the source of the plague. He had fortified himself with the opinion of the hon. Member for the London University, which was as good as that of any hon. Member, and it was to the effect that the source of the bubonic plague was still a matter of scientific obscurity. It had been ascertained that it was capable of being spread through animals. The discovery of the source of malaria had made great strides as compared with the discovery of the source of bubonic plague. It appeared to him, if he might say so as a layman, that the suggestion of the hon. Member that every precaution should be taken for knowing beforehand the site for isolation in case of an outbreak of bubonic plague was an eminently reasonable one; and he could hardly believe that the medical officers
656
in the Transvaal would not readily fall in with it. He thought the hon. Gentleman would admit that, in regard to the present outbreak, not only was every foresight and vigilance exercised but that sites for isolation purposes were actually taken in the event of an outbreak occurring. If those precautions were taken before the outbreak, à fortiori they should credit the Transvaal authorities with exercising precautions after the outbreak had occurred.
SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid he wished to ask why an outbreak was anticipated. The reasons for the anticipation might throw light on the possible sources of the plague.
MR. LYTTELTONsaid he was afraid he could not bind himself to an answer. The source was more or less conjectural. What he believed happened was as follows. It was for some time complained in Johannesburg that an insanitary area existed in the city, and one of the most deplorable features of the shortage of labour was that the Johannesburg municipality was unable to carry out the sanitary provisions they promoted and to clear the insanitary area which they knew existed. There was a shortage of no less than 1,000 labourers who were required to carry out this and other desirable work. That insanitary area was, he believed, not inhabited solely by Indian coolies but by Indian traders and other Indian inhabitants. They were not recent importations. There were a great many Indians in Johannesburg in President Kruger's time, and one of the areas which they inhabited was condemned as insanitary, but no labour existed to put into force the necessary remedy. No doubt, therefore, Lord Milner and the authorities of Johannesburg, seeing that certain areas were condemned, very likely foresaw that some epidemic might break out; and although it was very deplorable that the areas could not be cleared it was probably held that it would be even more deplorable to turn Asiatics into the streets in the present cold weather. As regarded the introduction of the Chinese, any man would be mad who would introduce them into a place where the plague existed or where it was not scrupulously isolated

657
and without taking the highest medical opinion as to its safety. Without taking upon himself the functions of the medical profession he might say that no such introduction was for a moment contemplated by the authorities of the Transvaal unless they were medically advised that such a proceeding would not be attended by risk.
DR. HUTCHINSONsaid he wished to know who would select the sites of the compounds. He was sorry that he had not much faith in the men on the spot, as Johannesburg was one of the most insanitary towns in the Empire. He wanted the right men to be selected.
MR. LYTTELTONsaid he had no doubt the best men would be appointed. Johannesburg was thoroughly insanitary during the time of the late Boer Government, but now great efforts were being made by Englishmen to improve it, and one of their great complaints was that they could not get the necessary labour now that they had the power and the money at their disposal. He strongly resented the imputation against the medical authorities out there, who had proved that they merited the confidence reposed in them. There were 30,000 less men in the mines now than there were before the war. One hon. Member asked whether measures would be taken to see that no Chinaman should be shipped from any ports known to be infected with the plague. He thought he might promise, without any consultation, that that would be done. With regard to the question of getting Indian coolies for the mines he quite agreed that it would be desirable, if possible, to obtain British father than Chinese subjects for this purpose, but the difficulty was that the Indian coolies were very actively employed already, and none willing to work in the mines could be found. He had been told that Indian coolies absolutely refused to have anything to do with mines or any underground work. The difference in the cost of living in China and in the Transvaal would not greatly affect the question, because the cost of the Chinamen's living would be borne by the persons employing them.
SIR E. DURNING-LAWRENCE ()desired to call attention
658
to the hardship entailed on his constituents owing to the action of the Government importing the granite which they were using in their naval works from Norway and other places. This was a matter of great importance to his constituents who were granite workers. No doubt it was, owing to the cheap labour abroad, quite as cheap to get granite from Norway as from Cornwall. He protested against the action of the Government.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)said he did not purpose to follow the hon. Gentleman into the question of Cornish granite; he merely wished to put a few Questions to the Colonial Secretary on the question of the Transvaal. The first Question he wished to allude to was the insanitary condition of Johannesburg, which was somewhat serious. The Colonial Secretary had said the sanitary condition of Johannesburg was very bad owing to the want of labour to improve the sanitation of the town, but from the Blue-books he found that Lord Milner had allowed 70,000 or 80,000 men to be allotted among the mines while the sanitation of Johannesburg was allowed to go.
MR. LYTTELTONsaid he alluded to the urban portions of the town, not the compounds of the miners.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that no one for a moment would suggest that the urban portions of Johannesburg were in a worse sanitary condition than the Kaffir compounds. All he said was that here was Lord Milner distributing these men among the mines instead of turning them on to the work of improving the sanitation of the place and preserving the lives of British subjects. That was simply because the mines came first. He would also like to know what had become of the great land settlement scheMR. During the past two or three sessions the House had heard a great deal of this land settlement scheme under which thousands of British subjects were to be settled on the land. One of the great inducements held out to the Yeomanry, to the whole of the three drafts, was a promise that large tracts of fertile land would be allotted to them; millions were to be spent on

659
irrigation. Was it not the fact that, in spite of all the money that had been spent, there were only 300 settlers on the land, and that on each of those settlers £2,000 had already been spent. He did not think we ought to allow all these miscalculations on the part of the Government to drop out of sight without some sort of comment, because it in fact formed part of the Liberal case that the Government at every step they took had miscalculated. They had laid down schemes which one by one had been proved to be false. The House was entitled to know from the Government what was the result of this great land settlement scheme. The Secretary of State for War was one of the missionaries of the scheme. The right hon. Gentleman went out on behalf of the Government to view the land, and came back and reported that it was a land flowing with milk and honey, and a land where all the surplus population of this country could settle down to peace and prosperity. The House was entitled to know whether in this case as in other respects the Government had completely miscalculated the* matter.
The second point upon which he should like some information was the finances of the Transvaal. He remembered the statement made by the late Colonial Secretary with regard to the finances of the Transvaal, and the fact that we were to get £35,000,000 back, and he recollected that the right hon. Member for West Bristol held out the prospect of our getting a considerable portion of the war expenditure back from the Transvaal. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham went out to South Africa, and his solitary achievement was to obtain from the magnates of Johannesburg a promise that they would provide £30,000,000, about one-eighth of the amount spent on the war. They promised £30,000,000 if we lent the Transvaal £35,000,000. We lent the £35,000,000, but what had we got of the £30,000,000? It was unpleasant to have to remind Members of the House of the promises that had been broken, but it was necessary in this case, and therefore he would quote a few extracts from a speech made by the late Colonial Secretary on this question. He said: "The
660
wilderness would blossom like the rose." At the present moment it was apparently only a yellow rose. With regard to the financial condition he said—
"Lord Milner has erred, if at all, on the side of caution. … One of our difficulties has been how to deal with the extraordinary growth which we have to chronicle, and which comes upon us as a surprise month by month. … I must warn the House that the Estimates of the Transvaal are perpetually changing."
that certainly was true.
"I can only give the latest returns, but my own hope and expectation is that, favourable as they are, even they will be improved upon. I anticipate a surplus, after providing for the £35,000,000 and the £30,000,000, of at least £300,000 a year for future development. I say that is an astonishing result."
The next passage was a characteristic one, in regard to which he thought that an apology was due to the Liberal Party.
"There are differences about Lord Milner, but there is not a man who would be so ungenerous as not to congratulate him on this marvellous result of his energy, his ability, and his unexampled devotion to duty. I cannot but recall—though I am not inclined to dwell upon them—the predictions which have been made by those who have been opposed to our policy with regard to the financial results."
But events had shown the predictions of the Liberal Party to be quite correct, and those of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham to be altogether wrong. And what had happened? The right hon. Gentleman had resigned from the Cabinet because he disagreed with those who left it and agreed with those who remained. That hardly accounted for all that had happened. The right hon. Gentleman would have had to explain away all those predictions, and probably he thought it better not to attempt it. Why had there been all these miscalculations. The road to ruin, in South Africa was simply paved with miscalculations. Was the Colonial Secretary sure that the High Commissioner had made his last miscalculations? Lord Milner miscalculated the temper of the Boers at the start, the probable duration of the war, the financial outlook, and the land settlement prospects. On what ground did the right hon. Gentleman come to the House of Commons with a policy which many believed to be disastrous to British honour, based on the calculations of one who had been proved on every cardinal point to be wrong in the past? The blunders with regard to the

661
revenue were due either to miscalculation or maladministration, and he was not certain that it was all due to miscalculation. One thing was perfectly clear, viz., that the administration was infinitely more costly than that of the corrupt Kruger Government. The functions of the Colonial Secretary did not end with merely sanctioning Lord Milner's Ordinances or defending Lord Milner's blunders. As long as the Transvaal was a Crown colony the right hon. Gentleman owed something to the House of Commons in the way of supervising what was being done. It was impossible to say how far we should have to finance them, and the House ought to scrutinise the administration as carefully as that of a Government Department.
Another matter on which information was required was land settlement. Seeing that the projects for settling our own countrymen in the Transvaal had failed, it was evident that, so far as agriculture was concerned, the matter would have to be left with the Dutch settlers, and consequently it was most important that they should be well treated under the repatriation schemes. Of the £3,000,000 voted for the restoration of the devastated country, £1,500,000 had gone in so-called administration. That was either stupidity or spoliation. In any event it was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to look personally into the matter. What would be the impression left upon the Dutch settlers, to whom the country had been deliberately left—for that was what the Chinese Labour Ordinance really meant? It was all very well to say that more white men would be required if Chinese were employed in the mines; but they would be clerks, engineers, and so forth, who did not intend to settle in the country. The British population was too much an urban population in South Africa. We had no surplus agricultural population to send out, and the next best thing to send was mining labour, but the right hon. Gentleman had deliberately declared that no miners need apply, they were not sufficiently cheap. After an expenditure of £250,000,000, with the probable addition of £35,000,000, British character and British prospects had been deliberately sacrificed for the purpose of converting
662
dividends of 180 per cent, declared last week on Crown Reefs into perhaps 250 per cent. Since, by the decision of the Colonial Secretary, it had been left to the Dutch to settle the agricultural districts, it was of vital importance that they should be made contented with British rule. But how could they be so contented? They were not satisfied with the terms of peace, even in their most generous interpretation, and when they saw that fully 50 per cent, of the £3,000,000 went to officials for so-called administration—to which they would give another name—what would they think of British rule? He thought the right hon. Gentleman was making a mistake. They ought to give Great Britain a chance, and if they did that there was a possibility of making a loyal Colony of it. He believed that the Boers would become loyal citizens if they were given the opportunity; but we had done all in our power to discourage them, not only by introducing Chinese labour, but also by means of despatches sent by our representatives, which were insulting to the Boer population. There was one despatch which he could not help thinking showed the paltry character of the man. The late Colonial Secretary sent Lord Milner a communication from Mr. Courtney enclosing a letter from General Botha, and, in reply, Lord Milner wrote a despatch, in which he deliberately referred to General Botha, first as "ex-General Botha," and afterwards as "Mr. Botha." That was one of those silly, stupid little blunders which hurt a small nation. He did not deny that Lord Milner was honest and sincere, and had great capacity, but he also had great capacity for making blunders and miscalculations. If Lord Milner was allowed to go on making blunder after blunder and miscalculation after miscalculation, writing violent political articles attacking his opponents' and insulting half the population he was governing, the losses they would have to incur in repairing those blunders would be greater than ever.
DR. MACNAMARAasked how Messrs. Hamilton and Perry, the two agents who had been recruiting coolies in Tien-tsin since 25th February,

663
could have been licensed, having regard to the fact that the arrangements for issuing licences were not made until 8th March. He wished to know, supposing that these coolies had been engaged by private treaty, contrary to the regulations issued last Monday, whether the Government would permit these coolies to be indentured under the Ordinance. Messrs. Hamilton and Perry had been recruiting in China for the last five weeks, and if any agreements had been come to with Chinese labourers what became of all the undertakings which the right hon. Gentleman had given and which they all desired to see carried out, that the Chinese should have the whole matter explained to them? The official who was to do this under the Ordinance had not been appointed yet. In these circumstances what became of all their precautions and regulations? Had Messrs. Hamilton and Perry a licence? Supposing these coolies had been engaged by a private treaty on behalf of the Transvaal mine-owners, would that engagement permit them to be indentured under the Ordinance, or would their engagements have to begin again in accordance with the regulations? He also wished to know what would happen when the child of a coolie arrived at the age of sixteen years. He was aware that the Colonial Secretary had told him that a coolie could only be there for three years and that the children taken out to South Africa must be under ten years of age, and therefore the case he had put could not arise.
MR. LYTTELTON: We only indenture them for a period of three years.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he understood that a coolie could not remain more than six years.
MR. LYTTELTON: That is so.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he thought the right hon. Gentleman was wrong, and in case he was wrong he wished to know would he make provision for the treatment of children when they arrived at sixteen years of age.
MR. LYTTELTON: I will do so if I am wrong.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid that Regulation 15 provided that every male child introduced into this colony, on attaining sixteen years of age, in the event of not entering into a contract with the importer, had to be returned at the expense of the importer to his own country. He hoped that the provision made in the first form of the Ordinance for the repatriation of coolie children when they arrived at the age of 16 would be introduced into the regulations.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL ()said that the question of this recruiting which was already proceeding in China was a very important one. The right hon. Gentleman had said that no Chinaman would go to South Africa until he had had the Ordinance explained to him by a licensed recruiter and by advertisement issued by the Chinese Government setting forth the terms on which the engagement was accepted. It was an essential part of his scheme that no coolie should be taken from his home to Hong-Kong until a licensed recruiter had explained the terms of engagement to him, and until the Chinese Government had had an opportunity of advertising the terms in the Chinese villages. Messrs. Hamilton and Perry were the agents of the Transvaal Native Labour Association, and, if the Colonial Secretary or Lord Milner were to express the desire of the Government that their operations should not be continued until the Ordinance came into operation, he could not believe that the association would refuse to suspend their operations. The Colonial Secretary had said that he had just received a telegram from Lord Milner requesting that the Ordinance should be applied to Asiatics now in Johannesburg. If that request referred merely to the sanitary provisions of the Ordinance there might be no objection.
MR. LYTTELTON: I understood it in that sense, but the terms of the telegram are somewhat ambiguous.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid it was a matter of great importance if there was an agitation to get rid of all Asiatics from the Transvaal except those who would be under confinement. The right hon. Gentleman had attributed the outbreak

665
of the plague to the insanitary condition of Johannesburg, and had stated that Johannesburg had been allowed to remain in an insanitary condition only because the town council had been unable to obtain the 1,000 labourers necessary for carrying out a scheme of improvement. Since the war 34,000 labourers had been drafted into the mines. Why had not the Government secured a certain proportion of these men to carry out these urgent operations? A thousand additional labourers had been drafted into the mines in February. Why had not the Government insisted upon having a prior claim that these labourers should, in the first instance, be placed at the service of the municipality?
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY ()said he should not have intervened in this debate but for the remarks of the hon. Member for Carnarvon, who had used language which should not be allowed to pass in any House where there was the slightest pretence of loyalty or patriotism. The language used by the hon. Member with respect to Lord Milner was disgracefully unworthy. [Cries of "Order."] If that epithet were considered too strong, he would ask the House which was most wrong—to use such an epithet or to allow to pass unchallenged such language as had been used by the hon. Member opposite against one of our greatest Governors, who had put this country under greater obligations [Cries of "Financial"], by the loyal and thorough discharge of the duties entrusted to him by the King, than perhaps anyone who had recently been in such a position.
MR. JOHN REDMOND (): Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask you whether we are to take it now as having been laid down as a precedent that it is in order to describe a statement made by an hon. Member in another part of the House as "disgracefully unworthy."
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: I at once withdrew it.
MR. SPEAKER: I called the hon. Member to order at the time, and I quite understood the hon. Member, in the words which followed, to have withdrawn that
666
statement. If it was not done it ought to be done.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he unreservedly withdrew the statement, if it was considered a phrase he ought not to have used. At the same time he said the language of the hon. Member opposite was language which ought not to have been used by anyone in that House who had the slightest regard for the interests of the country to which he belonged, and he did not think it right that such an attack as had been made upon Lord Milner should be allowed to pass entirely unchallenged on that side of the House. He undertook to say that the whole of the public duties discharged by the whole of the Members of that House were a comparatively small matter as compared with the duties of Lord Milner and the work he had done for them. He went out to South Africa at a time of immense difficulty, and faced the difficulties with the utmost courage, patience, wisdom, and statesmanship, and the reward he got from Gentlemen of the type of the hon. Member for Carnarvon and those who sat behind him and applauded him on this occasion, was to have his action described as petty and paltry. These epithets justified the objection he stated to the language used by the hon. Member. He could not suppose that there was one responsible man on the Front Opposition Bench who would adopt the language, used by the hon. Member for Carnarvon in regard to Lord Milner. Such language was grossly unpatriotic. The criticism of Lord Milner's Administration showed that some hon. Members were of opinion that it was opposed to the British colonisation of the Transvaal. On that side of the House some, who were not worse judges than hon. Gentlemen opposite, were of opinion that Lord Milner's Administration made directly f or the British colonisation of that country. He fully allowed that this was an object common to hon. Members on both sides. They were all agreed that the one great object of British statesmanship should be the colonisation of the Transvaal with a white population. They on that side of the House believed that that colonisation was likely to come from the measures which Lord Milner had

667
instituted and was carrying out under the direction of the home Government. White men would be required to carry on the higher work of supervision in connection with the development of the mines. The hon. Member for Carnarvon had referred to the necessity for attending to the requirements of the agricultural and rural parts of the country. That was an object which they also desired, and they hoped that Lord Milner's administration would have the effect of achieving it. Although Lord Milner was little in want of his defence, he wished to put on record his objection to the language used regarding him—language which was unworthy of the people who uttered it.
SIR ROBERT REID ()said he was glad to hear from the hon. and gallant Gentleman, for the first time in the many debates there had been during the past five years about South Africa, a statement which he thought was absolutely true, namely, that the object of all Gentlemen was the same. His hon. friend the Member for Carnarvon was one of those whose objects were as much for the interest of this country throughout the whole of the painful controversy of the past five years, as those of any Gentleman on either side of the House. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman who objected to what he regarded as calumnious statements with reference to Lord Milner, would look back over the five years of this South African controversy, he would find that his hon. friend had been subjected to ample calumny from that side of the House, and that he had received very little reparation. What he wanted to get the House to look at was the true picture of the condition of the Transvaal which was painted by his hon. friend the Member for Carnarvon. They were responsible for that country, and if they did not take care it would prove a bottomless pit for the blood and treasure of this country. The Transvaal was now in a condition that deserved the gravest attention from the House of Commons, and in a short time it might be in a still more serious condition. They had put upon that country a load of debt already of £35,000,000, which represented, roughly, about £80
668
per head of the white population, as against £18 per head for the National Debt in this country. We were about, if we could, to place £30,000,000 more upon their backs. They could not bear it. He thought they should give up all hope of getting anything repaid by the Transvaal in respect of the expenses of that most disastrous and unfortunate war. Those expenses and a great deal more would have to be borne by the people of this country, and they had not nearly got to the end of the outlay. Any outlay that would be in honour incumbent upon this country would not be objected to by those who objected to the war, but the responsibility would be upon those who created the war.
Then how much money were we spending on the Transvaal apart from the war. He was quite satisfied the Colonial Secretary would, in due course, give them full information in regard to that. It was very difficult to find out. He was not suggesting that there was any design to conceal it. But some items appeared in the Army Estimates, some in the Civil Service or Colonial Estimates; all these amounts would make a formidable total. In March last year the late Colonial Secretary said that at that time they amounted to £16,000,000. Since then amounts had been repaid out of the loan for which we were responsible, and further sums expended. Apart from that, we were now paying the cost of a garrison of 21.000 troops, while before the war there were only 3.000 soldiers in South Africa.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): There were more than that for some years.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he accepted the correction. A few years before; but after the Raid, when war was expected, there was an increase, but the normal garrison in time of peace was something, between 3,000 and 4,000 men. It was now 21,000 men, and that involved this country in an outlay of between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000. The war itself was said to have cost us £217,000,000. There was now a falling off in the revenues of the Transvaal.

669
Lord Milner had estimated the proceeds from the railways at from £2,000,000; six weeks afterwards he estimated them at £2,250,000; and six weeks afterwards again he estimated them at £2.500,000, yet there was now an enormous deficit. Why had the calculations been so flagrantly and ludicrously inaccurate? No explanation had been made. All the sanguine anticipations of what would happen after the war had been falsified. The country was governed under arbitrary and despotic conditions, more fitted for St. Petersburg than a British colony. All the persons living there were at the mercy of the Government. He did not say the officials of the Government would abuse their powers, but there was no freedom, not a vestige of self-government, although the time had come when steps should be taken in that direction. No one would dispute that Lord Milner desired to do his duty; but it was not wrong, it was their duty, to say, if they thought so, that the presence and action of Lord Milner in South Africa had been a national calamity. Many of the greatest misfortunes which befel this country had been brought about by high-minded men who thought they were doing their duty. He believed the present was a case in point, and that as long as Lord Milner remained in South Africa a satisfactory condition of things could not exist. He thought the time had come when steps should be taken in the direction of self-government in that country. They had had a recent illustration of its necessity. He believed at all times it was a desirable thing for a British colony but that it was specially so at this time, when, in every department of Government in the Transvaal there hid been a complete and signal failure, for which this country had, unfortunately, to bear the consequences.
MR. LYTTELTON: In answer to the speeches from the other side, it is vain for me to repeat what the House knows perfectly well—that we on this side of the House, and that I myself, have not merely a devoted admiration for Lord Milner, but believe that over a period now of nearly eight years he has made sacrifices of health, and of almost all else that makes life dear, and has poured out his work for the benefit,
670
as he believes, of the country over which he presides. It would be wrong for me to take up the time of the House with meeting, or attempting to meet, vague insinuations against him, or vague invectives. It is perfectly true that the anticipations of the immediate prosperity of the Transvaal have not been fully realised; but hon. Members are quite in error if they suppose that the condition of the Transvaal, if one element only were added to the general condition of things, would be short of that which was anticipated by Lord Milner. It was only a day or two ago that we heard speaker after speaker on the opposite side of the House dealing with the enormous wealth of the Transvaal, showing what a marvellous recovery it had had in the time since the war. There is no Member on that side who has studied the question who does not know perfectly well that the output of the mines at present is at the rate of £14,000,000 a year, and that it might be £20,000,000 or £25,000,000 if the existing machinery that is upon the spot was employed. How great, then, is the responsibility which hon. Members take upon themselves! They are perfectly right from their point of view if they think the proposal which has been made morally wrong; I accept that. But if they do not think the proposal morally wrong to introduce, in the conditions which have been described, Chinese labour, they have at once a remedy for the gloomy and deplorable picture which was painted by my hon. and learned friend opposite. He has asked if even now the Transvaal by itself is perfectly able to meet its obligations. I have the assurance of Lord Milner [OPPOSITION ironical cheers]—and I think Lord Milner is a financial authority [MINISTERIAL cheers]—that no demand will bi1 made at all on the Imperial Government in respect of the £30,000,000 guaranteed loan which has been made—it is £35.000,000, but £5,000,000 have not been issued. It is perfectly true he has said he will not be responsible for the following year if a third of the available assets of the colony are placed beyond reach—that is to say, if the Transvaal is allowed by this country, as it has been allowed, to put in force the propositions which he has made, which have been approved—I

671
will not argue it again—with practical unanimity by that country. [Cries of "Oh!" and '"Hear, hear!"] I do not wish to put myself before the House as a financial expert, nor to embark in any bold prophecy, but I think a mere study of the figures themselves will suffice. If the output of the mines is increased to the rate of £20,000,000 a year, and if to that be added all the auxiliary traffic that comes to the railways, and all the incresed commerce and business I think you will find Lord Milner's statement is demonstrably true. With that output you will be in a position amply to meet the obligations of the colony. It was put to me by the hon. Member for Carnarvon, and to a certain extent, though with greater charity, by my hon. and learned friend opposite, that the Transvaal had repudiated its obligations—the war contribution of £30,000,000—although they had received from this country £35,000,000 as consideration.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I certainly never said repudiated. I simply said they had failed; they had not paid it.
MR. LYTTELTON: I shall be in the recollection of the House in saying that the hon. Member made a very great grievance of it. It has been alleged, not once, but several times, that the mine-owners have failed to perform their part of the bargain, the underwriting of £10,000,000 of the war loan. The bargain was to underwrite this loan of £30,000,000 as regards the first instalment of £10,000,000 if the market conditions were favourable. ["Oh, oh'" and laughter.] It is useless to laugh. I can assure the House that was the bargain, and hon. Members will have an opportunity of seeing for themselves and raising the question again. But I assert that the bargain made by my predecessor in the most distinct terms was that he would not call upon the financiers to honour their underwriting unless the market conditions were favourable. ["Oh, oh!" and laughter.]
MR. WALLACE (): Who was to judge as to the conditions of the market?
MR. LYTTELTON: I am quite willing that my hon. friend should be
672
the judge himself either in the case of the Government or in the case of the financiers. My hon. and learned friend would see the emphatic assurance given by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham to the financiers on the occasion of their entering on the bargain. He would see that my predecessor, in the most distinct terms, said that he would not call upon them to underwrite this loan or himself issue the loan unless the market conditions were reasonably favourable. If my hon. friend had been in my place, say, in January, and had called upon the financiers to execute this bargain, not only would it have been looked upon as a gross breach of faith, but the financiers would be able to say, "We did not make this bargain, and we will not fulfil it." They have never for a moment shrunk from the obligation which they deliberately undertook of underwriting this £10,000,000 so soon as the conditions of the market were reasonably favourable. There is not an hon. Member opposite acquainted with these matters who would venture to say that the conditions of the market in January, February, and March were reasonably favourable.
MR. McCRAE: Were there no conditions as to Chinese labour?
MR. LYTTELTON: The suggestion of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh is ill-founded, and I am certain that my predecessor gave no undertaking, whatever, any more than I have since I succeeded him.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: What is his view now?
MR. LYTTELTON: I hope that my right hon. friend will be back soon, and the hon. Member may have an opportunity of hearing his views. A Question was asked me about land settlement. I have not the figures here, but substantially the hon. Member is correct. I think that the number is 312. I cannot at this moment give him the expenditure accurately on land settlement because a good many farms bought on advantageous terms by the Government have not yet been occupied, though they are an asset against the expenditure which has been

673
incurred for the settling of the existing settlers.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: How is the settlement progressing?
Mr. LYTTELTON: We have no late news as to that, but the hon. Member must be aware that there is a good deal occurring just now to occupy the attention of the Transvaal Government.
MR.LLOYD-GEORGE: Are the settlers increasing?
MR. LYTTELTON: I think they are increasing; certainly they are not getting less. I do not think also it is just to say that the expenditure on the Army in South Africa is simply in consequence of the war. The hon. Gentleman who; raised the point was not present, I think, at the Army debates, in which our obligations in future with regard to India were conclusively shown by the Prime Minister and the Secretary for War.
SIR CHARLES DILKE (): Does the right hon. Gentleman mean the Army debates this year or last year?
MR. LYTTELTON: I am speaking of the 21,000 men which my hon. and learned friend mentioned as a charge referable entirely to the expenditure on the war. I made the observation that it would not be lair to charge the whole of that expenditure on the Army to the war, because the placing of a very considerable force in South Africa would be highly desirable now, if only to make the troops available for India.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (): I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was in the House when the Secretary for War, in answer to a Question, distinctly said that the maintenance of this force of 21,000 men was entirely justified on the ground of South Africa itself. The Question was put explicitly to him, and the reason, of course, was that during last session we had a totally different story as to the necessity.
MR. LYTTELTON: The right hon. Gentleman has quoted there an authority
674
which I cannot resist. I hid in my mind the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Secretary for War; but I still think it a fair argument to say that the Army, placed as near India as the Army is in South Africa, does at any rate perform an Imperial purpose different and separate from that which it performs when occupying a country with which we have so recently been at war.
Another point raised was as to the amount of money spent in the Transvaal over and above the actual cost of the war. I answer that by saying that the words "repatriation" and "free grant" are very often used as different terms, although they often turn out to be the same terms. No one who fairly looks at thi3 question and thinks of the immense expenditure on the war—a war began by the invasion of His Majesty's dominions—who looks through the figures and estimates the burdens this country has taken on itself, since the war closed, in restocking farms and rebuilding houses, in giving free grants and paying war damage, in spending large sums in honouring the military receipts for requisitions made during the war, will fail to agree that no country has ever treated a conquered country more generously than we have done. At any rate you cannot have it both ways. I gather that a certain number of hon. Members opposite deplore an expenditure, which I admit to be lavish, on the Boers; on the other side we have the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs saying that £2,000,000 here and £3,000,000 there are not nearly enough, that we ought to do far more for the assistance of the Boers. Yes; but does the hon. Member reflect that there have been mistakes here and there in organising, in a country of that kind, the gigantic work of reconstruction, repatriation, and reconstitution? I beg the hon. Member to show some sympathy with those who have worked themselves to the bone on behalf of the Boers in that country—in resettling the people, in educating them, in inducing thousands of men to put forward their best efforts on behalf of agriculture with exceedingly good results. All honour be given to the men who have most enthusiastically discharged their duty to the benefit of good feeling and to the attainment of that reconciliation

675
which all desire should be rekindled by such generous efforts. The hon. Member for Camberwell asked me, with regard to the Ordinance, whether Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Perry have a licence to recruit. No, certainly not; no one has authority to give them it. A licence to recruit is to be given by some authority that does not at present exist. You cannot ship Chinamen under the Ordinance before the conditions precedent under that Ordinance have been fulfilled, and one of the conditions precedent to the embarkation of Chinese is the explanation to them of the contract by an official of their own and an official appointed by the British Government. Neither of those two officials is yet appointed, and surely it is perfectly obvious that, as no Chinaman can be lawfully embarked, neither can he be lawfully received under the Ordinance. If, as the result of the machinations, as the hon. Member thinks, of the persons he has named, there is an unlawful recruitment of Chinamen, the remedy is clear. The Chinamen could not be received on board a British ship which would carry them to Africa, neither could they be landed at the port in Africa, where it would be illegal to receive them.
DR. MACNAMARA: Will the right hon. Gentleman issue instructions that the recruitment shall be stopped until the proper official has been appointed?
MR. LYTTELTON: The hon. Member may have had a more happy experience than I have, but I never give directions or orders when I have no power to see that they are obeyed. I do not intend to give directions to people in China over whom I have no jurisdiction. In regard to the second Question, I hold to the opinion that there is no apprehension whatever of any Chinese boy of sixteen being in Africa. The Question about explaining the contract in advertisements in Chinese villages was a fair one. I think that ought to be done before any recruit is taken from the villages, and it will be a double protection. There is only one more point. Will the hon. Member for Carnarvon assure me—will he stake his reputation upon it—that he will be able to get from among the mining
676
population of Wales men who will consent to work alongside black men in the mines in South Africa? I am absolutely persuaded he cannot. [An HON. MEMBER: Nobody asks it!] I say no white man—no Englishman, at all events—can be persuaded to do that. You may regret it, but it is the fact. We have a duty also to the Kaffirs. There is a certain class of opinion which says, Clear out the Kaffirs and put all white men in. [OPPOSITION cries of "No, no!"] I am glad to hear that disavowal. If there is anybody here who holds that opinion, let me say with great respect that he mistakes the functions we have in Africa, and, what is more, he absolutely mistakes the ability of this country or any country to clear out the Kaffir population in order to make room for whites. The standard of unskilled labour in the country must be the standard of Kaffirs. To that standard you will never get white men in this country, any more than you will get white men in Australia or New Zealand, to conform. Let me beg, therefore, the hon. Member for Carnarvon, when he endeavours to give us assistance in the solution of one of the most difficult problems ever encountered by an English Minister, to eliminate that which it is absolutely impossible to carry out.
MR. JOHN REDMOND ()said there were problems connected with the present condition of the Transvaal which demanded the serious attention of the House, and he hoped they would be discussed later on. His object now was to ask for information as to matters of the greatest importance to Ireland. The Irish Land Act of last year had been five months in operation, but they knew absolutely nothing, with any certainty, of its operations. He made every allowance for the difficulties and delays which must attend the starting of so great a machine, for the delay which was necessary in selecting a proper staff and preparing offices, but he could not help remembering that, between the passage of the Land Bill into law and the date it came into operation, there had been a considerable interval, during which those preliminary matters ought to have been attended to.

677
The Land Commission published Returns of its operations every month, but they had had no Return so far of the working of the Land Act. In his opinion, it was absolutely necessary that such Returns should be published. The Act provided that periodical reports of the proceedings of the Estates Commissioners should be made and laid before Parliament as soon as possible. He did not know what regulations had been made under that section, but if regulations had been issued he had not seen them. If they had not been issued he thought it was a serious omission. It was not right that Parliament should be left for five months absolutely in the dark as to what was going on under the Act. He pressed the right hon. Gentleman to take steps to see that official information was given at the earliest possible moment. Could not the Chief Secretary forestall the official Returns and state what had taken place? In the first place, how many agreements had been filed? Two months had elapsed since the right hon. Gentleman gave them any information on that subject. He desired to know the amount of land and the number of tenants included in those agreements, and also the number of years purchase in those cases. That was a demand which had been made on several occasions, and the excuse put forward was not valid. The Chief Secretary said that this was a new Department, and they must make allowances, and that the information asked for would entail serious trouble, delay, and expense. He could not for the life of him see how all that was possible. If it were possible to make a list of the agreements surely there could not be much increased labour, time, or expense incurred by including the number of years purchase. If the Chief Secretary could not give them now he hoped they would be given at the earliest possible moment. Again, how many of the agreements under the Act came within, and how many outside, the zones? That was a most important poi nt. Could the Chief Secretary tell them if all those cases which fell outside the zones had been inspected and sanctioned by the Estates Commissioners and how many, if any, of the bargains had been objected to by the Estates Commissioners.
678
The second class of questions he desired to put were with reference to untenanted land. ["Hear, hear!"] It was not his purpose to emphasise the point with which everybody connected with Ireland was familiar, and which the right hon. Gentleman had admitted in many of his speeches last year, namely, that the success of any attempt at settlement of the land question very largely depended upon the power of acquiring untenanted lands. What had been the operation of the Estates Commissioners in this respect, and what untenanted land had they acquired? What was their mode of procedure? Were they waiting for the untenanted land to be brought to them in every case, or did they, when they found the untenanted land was not being offered to them, make any attempt to purchase land by initiating negotiations? He knew that the Chief Secretary's answer would be that when they were talking about buying land they must be careful not to raise the prices exorbitantly, and that if it were known that the Estates Commissioners intended to go all over the country looking for land the price would thereby be raised enormously. That might possibly be one effect, but after all there was no alternative. If the untenanted land would not go to the Estates Commissioners, they must go to get the land, because if the untenanted land was not acquired the whole scheme fell to the ground and would be an unmitigated failure. Information was therefore very necessary on that point.
Another question bringing in that of untenanted land was that of the evicted tenants. What steps were the Estates Commissioners taking with regard to that? He knew the difficulties of the position and did not think he took an unreasonable view of it. Where an estate was being sold it ought to be comparatively easy for the Estates Commissioners to bring about a reinstatement of the evict d tenants. How many such cases had there been, and how many estates were in the process of being transferred from the landlords to the tenants on which there were evicted tenants? The Estates Commissioners had enormous powers in this matter. They could define anything they liked as an "estate." If a

679
person went to them with an estate upon which there was a large number of evicted farmers and was not prepared to deal with them in a way which would enable the tenants to be restored, the Estates Commissioners had power to say they would not sanction the transaction unless the landlord came to some fair arrangement with respect to the evicted tenants. He desired to know how far the Commissioners were using that enormous power. His purpose in asking the question was not to obtain from the Chief Secretary a statement that the Commissioners were doing all they could; he wanted something more precise. How many such cases were there, and in how many of them was there a prospect of the tenants getting back? Were the Estates Commissioners taking steps to ensure that the tenants should get back? What were they doing in cases of evicted tenants where the landlords were not selling their estates? because some of the worst cases were on estates which were not likely to be sold in a hurry. The Estates Commissioners had power to provide farms for those evicted tenants elsewhere if they could not get them back into their own farms. Were the Commissioners taking any steps in that direction? He himself knew of only one estate on which the tenants were likely to get back, and that was the case of the Coolgreany estate in county Wexford, on which all the evicted tenants would he put in the agreement or in some way or other provided for. At any rate most of them would get back at prices agreed upon between the landlords and the local leaders, or priests, as representing the evicted tenants. He took it that the price was a satisfactory one, because he had heard nothing to the contrary. He was glad to know in that case that the houses were to be rebuilt for the evicted tenants and the lands were to be restocked, not by way of loans but by way of free grants, in addition to which the tenants were to receive certain payments by way of wages whilst their houses were being rebuilt, and which would amount to the whole amount of the instalments for several years. That was the only case in Ireland of which he had heard. If there were other cases he hoped the Chief Secretary would mention them; if
680
there were none he had to ask what was the cause of the delay. He was sure that the cause of the delay was not to be found in the Estates Commissioners themselves, at any rate so far as Mr. Bailey and Mr. Finucane were concerned. If they were not taking steps it must be because of some defect in the Act or in the Executive caused by the right hon. Gentleman. He pressed upon the right hon. Gentleman the extreme importance of proceeding rapidly in these matters. There had been the widest disappointment throughout Ireland that this process of restoring evicted tenants had been so slow. There had been no disappointment connected with the Land Act so intense as that repecting the slow operation of these clauses. It needed not only a benevolent but a wise statesman who would take immediate steps to hasten on a settlement. He believed the delay in restoring evicted tenants would act injuriously upon every other operation of the machinery of the Land Act, and he therefore urged the Chief Secretary to see that the Estates Commissioners should realise and exercise the enormous powers they had in this matter, so that in a very short time a large number of the evicted tenants might be restored to their homes.
There was another point he desired to raise, and that was what the Congested Districts Board were doing. They issued periodical reports, but this was a matter in which they ought to submit a special report to Parliament to enable them to discuss the working of the Land Act, for until they had that official information it was impossible for them to have an intelligent discussion at all. Certainly after five or six months working such a report should be made. He desired the right hon. Gentleman to impress upon the Congested Districts Board the desirability of making such a report as soon as possible, and, pending the report, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would give the information himself. The right hon. Gentleman, at the commencement of the session, told them about, the purchase of land by the Congested Districts Board. What further progress had they to report? Had they succeeded in getting into their hands a large amount of untenanted land in the

681
congested districts? He doubted it very much, but he wished it were true. He was afraid that the right hon. Gentleman was experiencing what the Nationalist Members prophesied last year, that it was necessary to invest the Congested Districts Board with compulsory powers—not some general compulsory powers, but such powers in the congested districts as the Board themselves asked for years ago and which the right hon. Gentleman refused last year because he thought they were unnecessary. Experience had shown that without such powers the acquisition of untenanted lands was impossible. He did not wish to censure or criticise the working of the Act; he simply wanted information on the points he had raised, and to press the right hon. Gentleman as strongly as he could to see that reports were immediately issued by these departments. Perhaps they could be issued periodically, say once a month or once in two months, for the future. The right hon. Gentleman should give them all the official information at his disposal, which certainly ought not to be denied to the representatives of Ireland.
MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid there were one or two Questions which he desired to add to those which had already been put by the hon. and learned Member opposite. He would suggest that the Return referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford might be divided into provinces. There was a Question he wished to put to the Chief Secretary which Irish Members would agree was very important. The Estates Commissioners had absolute discretion as to the definition of an estate. He should be glad to know what line the Commissioners were taking in a multitude of cases such as this:—Landlords in different parts of the country were getting part of their tenants to consent to buy at very good prices—more in fact than they ought to get for the land—and then they tried to J put pressure on the other tenants to give the same prices by telling them that, if they did not care to buy on those terms, the Estates Commissioners would divide the estate, and while one part would be sold they would be left in the position of tenants. These landlords were, in fact,
682
attempting to make a chess-board of their estates, part to be sold and part to remain tenanted; and what he wished to know was whether the Estates Commissioners would permit that sort of thing or whether they would refuse to allow land to be called an estate which was engineered in that way. He was afraid the Chief Secretary was tired of hearing about the Land Judge's Court, but he would hear more yet. When the Act was being passed a very salutary provision was inserted that the Estates Commissioners might make a proposal to the Land Judge for the purpose of purchasing estates within the Court. That was hailed by all parties in Ireland as a means of facilitating the sale of bankrupt properties. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what had been done under that section of the Act? How many estates had Judge Ross consented to sell, how many were actually sold, and what efforts had the Estates Commissioners made to carry out that section of the Act? Since the Act of 1896 was passed, great pressure had been put upon the Land Judge's Court to expedite the sale of estates, and he was very glad to think that considerable progress had been made in that direction. But when he reached Dublin on Saturday night he was waited upon by a deputation of clerks. Would the House believe that three clerks in the Receiver's Department, who had been fifteen years in the employment of the Court, married men with families, had been given notice to clear out without a farthing of compensation and very little notice? These men were not Civil servants, and he did not deny that the Treasury was strictly within its rights; but he thought the Chief Secretary should intervene to procure the transfer of these men to the Estates Commissioners' office, where they would naturally be more useful than inexperienced men. They ought not to be turned out in the street at forty or forty-five years of age when it would be very difficult for them to find other employment. He wished to express the opinion in conclusion that monthly reports should be furnished of the work of the Estates Commissioners exactly as were supplied by the Land Commission.
MR. ROCHEsaid he desired not only to elicit information from the Chief Secretary but also to impart information to the right hon. Gentleman, and the House, as to the manner in which the Land Act was being worked in the Division he had the honour to represent. There was no Division in Connaught which contained so much untenanted land as East Galway, and on the distribution of that land: among the tenants would depend the success of the Act. The Butson Estate in his constituency had been in the Land Judge's Court for a considerable number of years. There were about sixty tenants on the estate, all of whom were willing to purchase; and a fortnight ago they applied in the Land Judge's Court to be allowed to purchase. The Land Judge was willing on condition that £12,000 worth of rich untenanted land should be sold to the mother of the owner who was a minor. Naturally, the tenants refused to purchase. The untenanted land was situated quite two miles away from the demesne, and it was well known that Mrs. Butson was not able to purchase the land herself in consequence of the advance being limited. In May, 1902, Mrs. Butson entered into some agreement with Judge Ross to purchase this land which would have the effect, if curried out, of preventing she tenants from being able to enlarge their holdings; and only a fortnight ago the Land Judge threatened anyone who interfered with the tenants in connection with the sale with all the pains and penalties of his Court He would contrast that act of the Judge with his action recently when another lady who was a tenant of the Land Court refused to purchase her holding unless the sporting rights of the other tenants' holdings were sold to her at an almost nominal price, and this lady is the Land Judge's wife.
MR. SPEAKER: I understand that the hon Member is now attacking the action or a Judge in his own Court. That is not in order.
MR. ROCHEsaid he only wished to point out the action which was taken by a Land Judge's wife.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member appeared to be attacking the action of a Judge.
MR. ROCHEsaid that as the Judge was responsible for his wife's action he would not refer to the matter further. The hon. Member called attention to the course taken with respect to the Commyn Kenny estate, which consisted of grazing lands divided by the landlord into farms of twenty to twenty-five acres, and then put up for competition by advertisements in the local papers and by bills which were posted in the district. He questioned the Chief Secretary as to whether there had been any correspondence between Mr. Comyn Kenny and the Estates Commissioners, and the right hon. Gentleman at first replied that there had been no correspondence, but when further interrogated he stated that Mr. Comyn Kenny had had an interview with the Estates Commissioners, though no correspondence had passed. Was that worthy of anybody representing the Government in Ireland? It was something like what might be expected from a three-card man on a race course. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Thimble rigging.] Other estates, such as the Mahon estate at Ballydonlan, had been treated in the same manner. What the tenants objected to was that the distribution of the grazing lands should be left in the hands of the landlord, the agent, or the receiver. They considered that it was the duty of the Estates Commissioners to purchase the grazing lands and send out some person beyond suspicion and corruption to divide them among the poor people who, under the policy now being pursued, were shut out altogether from the opportunity of getting them. He was convinced that the redistribution of the grazing lands would be the great national question of the immediate future. The Act of Parliament recently passed only raised the question, but another would be required to settle it.
With regard to the evicted tenants, he said that there would never be a settlement of the land question in Ireland until they were reinstated in their old homes, where possible and when, no better homes should be provided for

685
them on the rich untenanted land. If the Chief Secretary were to pass Acts day after day in regard to Irish land there would never be peace in the country until the question of the evicted tenants was settled to the satisfaction of all concerned. The grazing lands on the Clanricarde Estate, from which the tenants were evicted, were in the hands of "planters" many of whom had never paid a penny of rent, although houses had been built for them at considerable expense. There ought to be no difficulty in getting rid of those people and in bringing about a settlement of the evicted tenants question. It was only quite recently that one of those planters who is in possession of nine evicted farms called on him to know if he would purchase his interest in them, which upon investigation appeared to be of no value—hence there should be little difficulty in settling the question.
MR. HEMPHILLsaid there was a great feeling of disappointment in Ireland at the slowness with which the Land Act was being worked. It had been in operation for five months, and up to the present there had been no tangible result. This was not the fault of the British Legislature, which had guaranteed out of the Imperial Exchequer a very large sum for the purposes of the Act. He wished to ask the Chief Secretary what was the reason of the delay. There were two possible causes for the delay. It might be that the landlords and tenants had not come together and agreed upon the purchase or sale of farms. If that was the cause it was obvious that the Act of Parliament must be amended either by importing the principle of compulsion, or by altering the present arrangement of the zones. There must be some organic change made in the present Act if the cause of the delay was the coyness of the landlord and tenant to come to an agreement. Another cause of the delay might be the insufficiency of the staff that worked the Act. He had not a word to say except of commendation regarding the Estates Commissioners. If it was necessary to reinforce the staff it would be better to do so than that the whole operation of the Act should hang
686
fire in the way it was doing at present. If, as the hon. Member for South Tyrone had suggested, there was a shortage of clerks or an insufficiency of accommodation, that should be remedied at once. Unless some means were taken for the redistribution of the large grazing lands among the occupying tenants who were prepared to purchase, the Act would produce no economical result to the advantage of Ireland. It was quite idle to suppose that the conversion of small tenants paying £3 or £4 a year of rent into fee-simple proprietors would not produce a great practical result. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that one of the foundations of the agricultural prosperity of England was a series of Acts of Parliament in the Tudor period by which it was forbidden to keep land in pasture to the exclusion of tillage. Therefore, this was no new principle which they wished to be introduced in Ireland in regard to the grass lands of that country. What he wanted to know was, how many estates in Ireland had changed hands under the Act; how much money was actually paid out of the Imperial Exchequer; how much of that money went in the shape of bonuses; and what had really taken place since the Act came into operation on 1st October? He also wished to direct attention to the great block in the Land Judge's Court. They all knew that the Land Judge was very young, active, and energetic; but the block might be due to his being unable to meet the business thrown upon him. It was, however, very easy to supplement his efforts by transferring a Supreme Court Judge to his Court. There was a large staff of Irish Judges, with very little to do, who were quite equal in ability and reputation to the present Land Judge. What a difference there was in the working of this Act from that of the Encumbered Estates Act. That Act was passed to carry out the great policy of relieving Ireland from receivers who were eating the vitals out of the country. The Committee appointed under that Act carried out the policy of the. Act; they listened to no delay and sold the estates to the highest bidder, and in four or five years Ireland was freed from the burden of the receivers.

687
The present block in the Land Court had arisen from that policy not being carried out. That was to the disadvantage of the country and for the sole benefit of the numerous herd of receivers which had again arisen.
COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had asked why the Land Purchase Act had not acted more speedily; but he did not go far enough in his search for the causes of the delay. The hon. Member for South Tyrone said that it was the fault of the landlords, because they were asking exorbitant prices for their land. He doubted that very much. [Ironical cheers from the IRISH Benches.] He knew that his hon. friends opposite thought that the terms asked for by the landlords were exhorbitant in the extreme. He did not believe that the landlords of Ireland were inclined to ask outrageous prices from their tenants. Some landlords, undoubtedly, absolutely refused to sell, but these were the exception. One little difficulty existed, as his hon. friend knew, and that was that limited owners could not sell because they would not get the bonus until the amending Act was passed. That difficulty had unquestionably caused some delay; but if his right hon. friend who represented hon. Members opposite wanted to know why the Act had not proceeded with more expedition, he ought to get his information from Mr. W. O'Brien. If the working of the Act had been left to the influence of the hon. Member for Waterford and to Mr. W. O'Brien he ventured to say that the number of sales and arrangements between landlords and tenants would have been ten times more numerous than they now were. He knew from reading the public Press that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford and Mr. W. O'Brien were honestly desirous to see the Act worked properly. [An HON. MEMBER on the Irish Benches: So we all are.] Then why did Mr. W. O'Brien leave the Party and resign his set? There might be other reasons, but, from reading the public statements of Mr. W. O'Brien, he believed that that gentleman left the Party because he thought that the Land Purchase Act was not getting fair play. And he thought
688
that was a very good reason. During the whole of the discussion on the land question since the time of the Land Conference, to his mind, the course pursued by Mr. W. O'Brien was that of an honest man who desired to see a settlement that would work well. But there had been other influences at work, as could be seen by anybody who took the trouble to read the Freeman's Journal. That paper had great influence and had done its best steadily and persistently to prevent the tenants coming to terms with their landlords.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Well, why have there been fewer sales in Ulster, where the Freeman's Journal has no influence, than in any other province of Ireland?
COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid he did not understand the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman's Question. The Freeman's Journal circulated in all parts of Ireland. Of course it was known that one section of the Irish Party wanted the Act to work successfully and another section did not. He believed that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford had sold his own property under the Act, which was a very good example to other landlords and a proof of his desire that the Act should be successfully carried out. As an Irish landlord he himself was entirely in favour of the successful working of the Act, but it was impossible to deal with his tenants until the amending Act was passed. The original Act passed by this House was, to his mind, one of the most generous Acts ever passed by any Legislature in the world, but it had been made use of for political purposes. He was ready to deal with his tenants in the county of Kerry where he had a great number; and he had explained to them that he was willing to sell them their holdings on certain terms—the terms on which most landlords were willing to sell, viz., that after the sale was completed he should have something near his present income. He had received a notice the other day that if he wanted to sell his property to his tenants he was not to do it direct but through the Land League. What on earth had the Land League to say to his relations with his tenants? His

689
reply was that he absolutely declined to deal with his tenants except directly with themselves. And that was the position taken by the great majority of the other landlords in Ireland. He wished the Act to succeed; and he believed that all the landlords in Ireland were willing to sell on reasonable terms. He believed he was the first Irish landlord who had spoken in this House—in the year 1870, before most of the hon. Gentlemen opposite were born—in favour of an Irish Land Bill—[An HON. MEMBER on the IRISH Benches: You were a Liberal then.]—and he had always maintained, and he maintained still, that a settlement of the Irish land question could only be accomplished by the occupiers of land in Ireland becoming the owners. He did not agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite. He was convinced that the vast majority of the Irish landlords were willing to sell on terms of honourable dealing, as between man and man.
MR. HUGH LAWsaid that during the debates on the Land Bill the Chief Secretary stated that he looked forward to the increasing purchase of estates by the Congested Districts Board, and that the Board would pursue a more active policy. He was now anxious to ascertain when they might expect that policy to be adopted. He understood that the Congested Districts Board had taken up the attitude of not initiating any proposal for purchase. At first sight that seemed to be perfectly reasonable, because it might be said that such action could only end in running up the price of the land. But the result was that the very estates which were most in need of being purchased had their sale postponed indefinitely. He had in his mind a particular estate in his own constituency which was in that position. It was a small estate of about 120 tenants, the land was poor mountain land, the holdings were small, and the houses were very wretched. There was also a considerable portion of rough mountain land which had been taken away from the tenants years ago. Last autumn, before the Act was in operation, they asked the agent to forward to the landland the terms on which they would be prepared to purchase and he promised he would, but nothing had since
690
been heard of the matter. The landlord was an absentee, and the only address he could discover was Plymouth, and that only because it figured in the writs which were regularly showered on the tenants. The estate was managed in an extraordinary way. He himself had seen a file of receipts extending back for twenty years, but it was impossible for any particular tenant to know how precisely he stood as regarded his rent since their receipts did not state the rent received up to any specific date, but were issued year after year simply as "on account of debt." That was exactly the sort of estate on which the greatest benefits would accrue from purchase. He was informed that the landlord was now either in the Riviera or at Algiers and the sale of the estate seemed likely to be hung up indefinitely. It was quite obvious that in such a case no private person could initiate negotiations, which, if they were to have any useful issue, must be concerned not only with the existing uneconomic holdings but also with the large area of unoccupied land in the vicinity. In such a case, it was clearly within the province of the public department which was specifically charged with the duty of ameliorating the social condition of such districts to take the first steps to bring about a sale, and resettlement of the lands—since they and they alone were in the position to deal with the matter in its entirety.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,)said although he would be able to give some of the information asked for it would be of a somewhat fragmentary and insufficiently digested character.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he sent the right hon. Gentleman notice that he intended to raise the matter.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid he did not receive the notice.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he wrote to the right hon. Gentleman at the Irish Office on the previous day.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid that, at Questions, he formed the impression that other matters would be raised.

691
In reply to the hon. Member for West Donegal he quite agreed that these derelict properties were precisely the estates on which the Congested Districts Board could hope to bestow the greatest benefit, but it would be most imprudent on the part of the Board and of the Estates Commissioners to push themselves too much forward in seeking land which was for sale. As a matter of fact, inquiries were being made by both, but as far as possible they were being made very discreetly. In regard to the prospects of the Act, he took a more sanguine view than did the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh. He still believed quite as profoundly as last year that, if all Parties to the Act endeavoured to work it in the spirit which animated the debates last year, a very great measure of success would attend its operations. There had been several references to the question of the evicted tenants. He knew of no settled plan on the part of any landlords in Ireland not to deal with the question of the evicted tenants; on the contrary, he had heard from many that they were anxious and ready to deal with it. Repatriation of the evicted tenants was, however, a difficult question which could not be settled as quickly as he would wish it. The right hon. Member for North Tyrone had referred to the Land Judge's Court. That subject was to be dealt with on the first Wednesday after the recess; so he would only now say that Mr. Justice Ross informed him that since 1896 he had sold agricultural land to the value of nearly £3,000,000, without taking into account the sale of non-agricultural hereditaments in towns. His Court was now no longer congested, and so far from requiring help, he thought that he might be in a position to give help elsewhere at no very distant time. In regard to the specific case mentioned by the hon. Member for East Galway, he could only repeat the statement of fact made by the Land Judge—that the agreement in question was entered into before the Land Act of last year came into operation. It was difficult enough to work the Act, but it clearly was not possible to import into the working of the Act matters which were decided upon before the Act was passed.
MB. ROCHEsaid that his point was whether the sale would be indefinitely hung up.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid that the hon. Member would not be surprised if he had not definite information in reference to all the details of the case, but he would make it his duty to inform himself on the matter. The hon. Member for South Tyrone asked for information on the Land Act. He had not that information at his disposal, but he could inform the hon. Gentleman that sales were proceeding in Ulster, and were likely to proceed at a better rate than had hitherto obtained. He had it in mind that a larger number of estates were likely to come into the market in the near future—estates which were situated in South Tyrone and Fermanagh. He had been asked to make a statement as to the lines followed by the Estates Commissioners in dividing estates. But the Estates Commissioners never had divided, and he attached so much importance to preserving intact the discretion of the Estates Commissioners that he was very loth to lay down any rigid rule which could be binding in every instance. Therefore if they laid down a rigid rule that a percentage of the people on the property must agree, that would defeat the object nearest to the hearts of many of the hon. Members opposite—an object which must be achieved if the Act was to be successful. Unless they could secure the tenants on the land, deal with the problem of congestion, and carry out the general concordat arrived at last year, he should not claim that the Act had succeeded. In answer to the hon. Member for South Tyrone he would say that as vacancies occurred on the staff in the Estates Commissioners office they would be tilled up, but at present there were no vacancies. As the work under the Act extended it would be necessary to see that an adequate staff was provided. But they began tentatively as it was their duty. He did not like to stand there and plead for more time, but it had been a difficult matter to staff the financial and administrative work under this Act. He did not himself waste any time, and he was almost continually in negotiation with the Treasury making regulations to govern the administrative procedure under the

693
Act. The work was not colossal, but it was complex, and not work that ought to be hastily and badly done. The ultimate success of this Act depended upon their making a good beginning.
He would submit to those who were impatient of delay that there were two causes for it which were unavoidable— first, it would have been reckless to have floated a small amount of stock either in December or in January. Indeed he would have been very glad if he could have withheld the flotation of any until a later date. By holding back until April or May better prices would have been obtained. Had he postponed it much further, it would have been necessary to ask those who took up stock to pay a large percentage. That would have been injurious, and would have made the stock unpopular. Now that the stock was floated, and he was told very successfully, they could proceed with greater energy and speed in the administration of the Act. The other probable cause of delay was the doubt which had been cast upon the fact that a bonus attached to the sale of untenanted land. That had almost a paralysing effect. Owners of untenanted land would not commence negotiations if they wore led to believe that there was not to be a bonus. It was clear that nothing could well be done until that question was decided. It had been said that information ought to be given as to the working of the Act in order that it might be discussed. He fully admitted that contention. Whether it was possible to grant monthly Returns or not he doubted, but he would consider it. If monthly Returns were given they would have to be of a very sketchy character. He would consider the possibility of giving interim Returns, into which he would put as much information as he could. He thought six months would he a convenient period to embrace in such a Return—from November to the end of April inclusive, and he would endeavour to get a Return out in May, including prices. It was, however, very difficult to show what was going on under the Act, as some of the negotiations were in every kind of stage. The applications for advances amounted to £2,000,000, and had come from 4,152 tenants on 250 estates; many bargains had been entered into, but applications had not
694
yet been received from tenants. Of these applying tenants 1,301 came from counties comprising congested districts. As to untenanted land, negotiations were pending for the purchase of 9,500 acres. The Estates Commissioners informed him that, in their opinion, when the question of bonus was settled these negotiations would in the majority of cases be successful. He was not aware of any marked reluctance on the part of the owners to sell untenanted land. He believed it would come into the market when the bonus question was settled. The land, when acquired, would be, used for two objects — the restoration of evicted tenants, and for the enlargement of holdings. Not much progress had been made yet in solving the problem of evicted tenants. Sixty-one had been restored and six more were about to be, but in a great number of cases evicted tenants had been restored by landlords prior to sale. A certain number of those restored were on the Coolgreany Estate, but there were sporadic cases where two or three evicted tenants had been dealt with by the owners. He knew of another estate on which the evicted tenants question would probably be settled in a short time.
He knew of no inclination on the part of the Irish landlords to go back upon the understanding arrived at last year. The Congested Districts Board had been more successful than the Estates Commissioners. They had purchased altogether 46,881 acres of land for £190,000, of these 21,154 acres were untenanted. That had been only possible because the Congested Districts Board enjoyed an income, and therefore they were able to conclude some bargains by stating that the annual income landlords received from all sources would amount to so and so. They took the risk of paying that amount out of their income until the question of paying a bonus was settled. Why it was possible for the Congested Districts Board to buy more untenanted land than the Estates Commissioners was because the Estates Commissioners had no income at their disposal and would not be able to advance the necessary money until the Bill which he had brought in had been passed

695
into law. He had now dealt with the amount of land and the number of tenants.
MR. JOHN REDMONDasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could give figures for the other provinces of Ireland similar to those which he had given for Ulster.
MR. WYNDHAMreplied that he had not that information by him; he could only give the total average. He was not going to repeat again to-night what he had often said, viz., that averages might be fallacious. But this was the information at his disposal: on the rents fixed or agreed to since the passing of the Act of 1896—i.e., second-term rents — the average price was 23·7 years for the whole country, and on the rents fixed before 21·8. Then the hon. Member asked him how many cases had been outside the zones. On that he could only give an illustration. It required a good deal of clerical labour. Eighteen hundred and fifty-one cases were taken at random. There were 728 cases of rents fixed since 1896. Of those, fifty-one were outside the zones, all but one of which were sold at a price below the zones. There had been one case of a farm of great value sold above the zones. On the rents fixed prior to 1896. there were 580; twenty-two were outside the zones, and all but five were at a figure below the zone price. The difference of 543 were non-judicial rents, to which the zones did not apply.
MB. JOHN REDMONDsaid he asked another question with reference to the zones, viz., whether any of the cases outside the zones had been, on investigation, refused.
MR. WYNDHAM: To the best of my knowledge and belief—and I think I can speak with confidence — none. He thought the machinery adopted for dealing with cases outside the zones was of a more expeditious character than he ventured to think possible when they were discussing the Bill last year. He did not think there had been—at any rate it had not been brought to his knowledge—much difficulty experienced in these cases. He had endeavoured to give
696
a reply to the specific questions put to him by the hon. and learned Member. He said the Act had been in operation five or six months. It would have been in operation six months at the end of April, and he would endeavour to collect as much information as he could of all the operations under the Act during the six months, and present it to the House at an early date in May, so that, if the hon. and learned Member thought fit to ask the Leader of the House to allocate one day in Supply to a discussion of the Land Commission Estimate, he would take care that he had the information a week or a fortnight before such a day. It was not possible for him to enter into the particular cases which had been raised. Indeed, he deprecated any attempt on his part to do so as a general rule. The duties of the Estates Commissioners were known. He had great confidence in them. Their discretion should be preserved as far as possible, and they should act upon their responsibility and not be dictated to by him in detail. But for the general policy of the Act he was responsible. They were administrative officers open to the criticism of Parliament, and subject to the direction of the House.
MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLreferring to the statement of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh that the landlords would be prepared to sell if they could get prices which would bring in their present net income, said that if the landlords of Ireland would agree to a full investigation so that the tenants might know exactly what their net incomes were, the tenants would be only too glad to enter into negotiations with them. His object, in rising, however, was to call attention to the action of the Lord Chancellor in dismissing from his office a justice of the peace in county Kerry, because he had signed warrants—
MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the Lord Chancellor's salary did not come on the Votes, and that it had been frequently ruled that his action could not be criticised in Supply; therefore the question could not be raised on the Appropriation Bill.
MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLsaid he desired to raise the question of the salary of the law officers.
MR. SPEAKERsaid the dismissal was the action of the Lord Chancellor, not of the law officers. It was impossible for the matter to be dealt with, except as something done by the Lord Chancellor.
MK. THOMAS O'DONNELLasked whether the law officers had no responsibility for or control whatever, over, not judicial, but administrative acts done in Ireland by the Lord Chancellor.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,)remarked that the dismissal of a justice of the peace was altogether the Act of the Lord Chancellor.
MR. SPEAKERsaid the fact that the Attorney-General answered Questions on these matters in this House did not affect the ruling that on Supply or on the Consolidated Fund Bill no discussion could take place with regard to the action of the Lord Chancellor. It could be done only by an express Motion. Criticism of the action of Judges could be made only upon an Address.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked whether the Lord Chancellor was not dismissable at pleasure and consequently was not his action subject to the control of the Executive Government.
MR. SPEAKERreplied that, whatever might be the history of the Lord Chancellor's appointment, it was a well-known rule of the House that his action could not be dealt with on the Estimates.
MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Might I ask whether the Attorney-General advised the Lord Chancellor that this justice of the peace acted illegally?
MR. SPEAKER: I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has already said that it was entirely the action of the Lord Chancellor.
MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLsuggested that if such advice had been given he
698
would be in order in discussing the matter on the Attorney-General's salary.
MR. SPEAKERsaid that that would not bring the discussion in order. The Lord Chancellor and not the Attorney-General was the responsible Minister.
MR. KILBRIDEdesired to ask some questions with regard to the administration of the Land Act. Power was given to the Estates Commissioners, before they sanctioned sales, to make inquiries as to the provision made on the estates for the housing of the agricultural labourers; and under the Labourers Acts they could form schemes, and make representations to the local authorities as to the necessity for carrying those schemes into execution. He desired to know whether with the sale of the Leinster Estate in South Kildare, any such steps had been taken by the Estate Commissioners.
And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAM- WAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL (BY ORDER.)
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY ()said in moving the instruction standing in his name, he would like to put before the House some reasons for the course he proposed to take instead of allowing the matter to be dealt with by the Committee upstairs. In the first place, the only persons who could oppose this matter in the Committee were the road authorities and the frontagers. So far as the former were concerned they were the L.C.C., and there were practically no frontagers because there could not be any on Westminster Bridge, whilst on the Embankment there were very few, and such as they were they were not capable of appearing before the Committee. This scheme had been brought before this House periodically ever since 1894, and had always been rejected, and he thought it was not improper to suggest that this

  699
  House should confirm its former Acts, and reject the present scheme. There were two reasons why this scheme should not be authorised; first of all, the proposal was unnecessary and would confer no benefit on anyone, and, secondly, if it were proved to be beneficial, it would be, he submitted, unwise to take any steps in regard to the matter before the Royal Commission had reported. Supposing, which he did not for a moment believe, that the scheme was necessary, it would be admitted by everybody who had studied the questions and understood the proposals made that the new scheme could be of no use to anyone until the new streets which the County Council were now making from the Strand to Holborn were completed. It was proposed by the Bill to run a tramway across Westminster Bridge, and then turn to the right at right angles down the Embankment for five-eighths of a mile and stop at Waterloo Bridge. He was prepared to argue that there was no advantage to be gained by this. It was as easy for anyone to get out of a tram on the south side of Westminster Bridge as it was to do so on the north side, and there could be no possible object in carrying the tramway five-eighths of a mile down the Embankment, and that was seen by the fact that the County Council, when they ran 'buses, and the present proprietors of the 'buses which started from the tramway terminus at Westminster did not run them down the Embankment, but up through Parliament Street and Trafalgar Square. Nobody wanted to go that short distance down the Embankment, and if they did he might suggest that the Underground Railway was in existence, with stations at Charing Cross and the Temple. The only possible advantage that could be gained by this tramway, when the new street was constructed, was that it could be connected with that street, and thus enable people living on the south side of the water to come over Westminster Bridge, down the Embankment, and so on to Holborn. Until the new street was constructed this scheme was of no use whatever, and there was no necessity at present to construct it. He would further point out that the Baker Street and Waterloo Electric Railway now under construction would be finished at the
  700
  end of this year or the beginning of next, and he had been informed that there would be a station in the Westminster Bridge Road, which was the road through which these trams would come, three-eighths of a mile from the bridge, and that people could get out of the trams and go on the Baker Street tube to Trafalgar Square, and so on to their various destinations, either by that tube or by the Metropolitan or District Railways, which by that time would be electrified and with which it would be connected.
  In support of his proposition that this particular scheme would be detrimental to the traffic of this neighbourhood, Sir Frederick quoted police evidence givers before the Select Committee of the House of Lords in 1892, and police evidence given in November 1903, and also the evidence given by Mr. Benn, Chairman of the County Council, and late of the Tramways Committee of that Council. He adduced evidence to show that tramways tended to throw all the other traffic on to the sides of the road, and argued that the utility of the Embankment in such a case I would be lost. As to the suggestion that there were no facilities for people who had arrived at the other end of West minster Bridge getting to their destination, he would point out that 218 omnibuses crossed the bridge every hour, while, so far as Parliament Street and Trafalgar Square were concerned, the number of 'buses that went there from Westminster numbered 500 an hour, which showed that there were great facilities. He contended that the obstruction on the other side of the bridge; caused by the terminus of the tramway had been used by the County Council as a lever for the purpose of coming to this House on this question. They had deliberately encouraged the obstruction on the other side in order that they might come to this House and ask it to carry out this fad which they had got into their head. He asked the House under all the circumstances to say that this scheme, which was not a local question but a portion of the great question of London traffic, should be deferred till the Railway Commission had reported upon the whole matter. He begged to move.
  MR. WHITMORE ()seconded the Motion, because he had a similar Instruction upon the Paper relating to a small line of tramway which would connect the existing line at Stangate with the line which was the subject of this Instruction. He admitted that to justify the moving of an Instruction Board Private Bill, it was necessary to show strong reasons. In this case one reason was that in every other thoroughfare of London if the London County Council had proposed to lay down tramways they would have to obtain the assent of the local authorities, but in this particular; case the local authority of Westminster had no voice in this matter. In the second place he felt justified in taking this course, because of the exceptional interest of the Victoria embankment to Londoners. It was a unique possession for any city—this riverside space, with its gardens and music, for which the London County Council deserved all credit. It was a pleasant place, where quiet people could stroll or sit on a summer evening; but make it a noisy, arterial thoroughfare with a procession of tram-cars and its charm would disappear. He quite admitted that, if the Traffic Commission were to come to the conclusion that for utilitarian; reasons the beautiful boulevard should become a tram-car route, no aesthetic considerations should prevail. But the Commission had not reported; it by no means followed that Westminster Bridge and the Embankment was the best main route for connecting the tram-car services on either side of the river. Surely there was no need for precipitate action, and the House might reasonably wait a few months before giving sanction to a proposal which would spoil one of the most beautiful thoroughfares in London. The hon. Member for Battersea had always been much interested in preserving the beauty and dignity of London, and they h id in the Thames Embankment a unique possession in this respect. The London County Council had been doing admirable work in making the Embankment and its gardens not only more beautiful but more popular. He hoped to see some day a great, boulevard from Chelsea to Black-friars, forming a great riverside way with many gardens, which would be an
  702
  ornament to London, which any city would be proud of, and any population glad to possess. They could never make such a riverside way a direct and quick means of locomotion for arterial traffic because of the natural curves in the course of the Thames. Therefore, with great earnestness, he would ask the hon. Member for North Camberwell and other hon. Members who were supporting this scheme not to be too precipitate about this matter. Surely they might wait a few months until the Royal Commission had reported. He, at any rate, was glad to have an opportunity of doing something to give a vote to arrest a precipitate and a hasty proposal which might be wrong on utilitarian grounds as to ultimate remedy for connecting the populations north and south of the Thames, and which most certainly must do something to impair the very rare charm of a beautiful boulevard.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill to omit Tramway No. 2. "—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he opposed this Instruction because he knew that for more than half a generation not only the majority of his own constituency, but the majority of the inhabitants of South London had demanded this tramway. In the year 1892 a Bill passed through this House and a Committee upstairs with this object in view, and it was only lost in another place. Was it likely that the London County Council would desire to make this tramway if the people of London as a whole were opposed to it, seeing that they depended for their existence upon the votes of the ratepayers, and ran the risk of an increase in the rates in case the tramway was not a success? He ventured to predict that the opposite would be the case. Having developed the tramways in the North and South of London it had become necessary to connect them, and this for the moment was the best method of doing it. The hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham had

  703
  pointed out the number of omnibuses which crossed the bridge, and he said that 30,000 foot passengers crossed every day between 8 o'clock in the morning and 8 o'clock in the evening. Seeing that a tramcar could take as many passengers as three buses it was evident that this scheme would decrease the traffic over the bridge, and it would furnish an alternative route to the City, and relieve the traffic in Parliament Street and the Strand. The 'buses did not take the route up the Embankment—and why? Because they preferred to go up streets where they could pick up casual fares. It was at one time argued that Westminster Bridge was not strong enough to carry the trams, but hon. Members had now given up that silly objection. The London County Council had the interests of London to serve, Westminster Bridge was of ample width, and the Embankment was intended to relieve the pressure of traffic in Parliament Street and the Strand. As to the Embankment, it was made at a cost of £2,000,000, and was it not absurd to say that full use should not be made of it? As to congestion, all that was suggested was that Middlesex should take its share of it, with its wider bridge and Embankment made for the use of Londoners, North and South. Why should everything be sacrificed to North London and nothing to South London? Tubes had been suggested. South Londoners were to be like Chinamen; they were to be sent underground while those on the other side of the river were to be allowed to breathe the fresh air. The hon. Member for Chelsea spoke of the Embankment as being a line promenade. That was so, and he presumed that it was intended for the people of London at large, but under present circumstances very few people from North London or from the extreme East or West of London ever saw the Embankment, for the simple reason that they could not conveniently get there, and the same applied to some extent to South London. Under this scheme, if the North and South were connected with a tramway, then there would be a chance of Londoners generally enjoying this beautiful Embankment.
  They should also remember that there was a proposal to establish an excellent system of steamers on the river. He t bought this tramway scheme would be
  704
  cheaper and pleasanter than a subway, and they should not forget that a subway ' would cost £500,000, whereas this tramway would not probably cost one-third of that sum, and it would facilitate 2,000,000 of people in South London getting backwards and forwards to their work, and would distribute the congestion more fairly between those who lived North and South of the river. It would diminish the omnibus traffic, and would be a great convenience to those who had now to change and get out on the Surrey side. Not only this, but it would take people across Westminster Bridge and along the Embankment, and it would thus tap the underground railway. The housing question was closely bound up with the scheme, which would enable people to live further out in the suburbs. They all knew the extreme pressure in the central portion of London had been greatly relieved in reference to the housing problem by the London County Council trams taking people out to Tooting and elsewhere. This scheme would enable people to live further out still, thus relieving the pressure in the inner circle. A complete system of tramways throughout London would produce a considerable revenue to the London County Council which would enable them to make a material decrease in the rates. His constituents for the most part were warehousemen and shop assistants, male and female, and they were bound to go every day either to the City or to the West End in order to gain their livelihood. He had been acquainted with South London for nearly twenty years, and in bad weather he had seen men and women actually fighting to get into omnibuses, and after the fight was over he had seen dozens of women and young girls rushing across the bridge in the hope that they might get to their business in time and in great distress for fear they should lose their situation. Consequently they frequently had to work all day in wet clothes, and there were thousands of women and young girls in London who contracted lung diseases of all kinds in consequence of this defective communication between North and South London. Upon the highest principles of humanity this state of things ought not to be allowed to

  705
  exist. They were told that a Royal Commission was considering this question, but Royal Commissions were always reporting, and frequently did not report for years. At the present time hundreds and thousands of people were being inconvenienced every day, and it was a monstrous thing to ask them to wait for the Report of the Royal Commission.
  MR. COHENsaid he was not in the least swayed by the argument of the hon. Member for Chelsea. De qustibus non est disputandum. So far as he was concerned he saw nothing at all ugly in tramways. On the contrary he thought there would be something very interesting in tramways along the Thames Embankment, provided always that they served a useful purpose in facilitating the migration of the people. It was not on that account that he would support the Motion of his hon. friend. The hon. Member for Newington had said that people from the East End never went along the Embankment. He differed from the hon. Member in that. Times out of number crowds from the East End went along the Embankment on their march to Hyde Park to listen to the oratory of the hon. Member for Battersea. Mr. William Fisher, police superintendent, who gave evidence before the House of Lords Committee, stated that the only means of getting access to that instructive entertainment was the Embankment. It was, therefore, in the interests of liberty of speech and in the interest of the East-Enders, who used the Embankment and wished to be guided in their opinions by the hon. Member for Battersea, that he considered the House should not allow tramways t here. He went a little further. He did not consider that the London County Council had any right to promote a Bill seeking to forestall and possibly come in conflict with the Report of the Royal Commission. That Commission was composed of very able commissioners, and he thought the House had a right to expect that at the very latest they would present their Report towards the end of autumn this year. He thought that they should wait for the Report of the Royal Commission. The House would be ill-advised to sanction
  706
  an arrangement of this kind before the Commission had reported.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid this tramway would be a great boon to the great mass of people living in his constituency. He admired the ingenuity shown by hon. Members who opposed the proposal. He had read the whole of the debates with reference to this scheme since 1891, and most amusing they were. The hon. Member for Chelsea said to-night that this was precipitate action on the part of the County Council. How could he apply the term precipitate to a proposal which was brought forward by the London Tramway Company so long ago as 1891?
  MR. WHITMOREsaid this was not quite the same scheme; but apart from that the proposal was precipitate because of the fact that a Royal Commission was inquiring into the whole question of travelling facilities in London.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid this was in essence the same proposal as that of 1891. It was killed on that occasion by two main arguments. The first was that the members of St. Stephen's Club were opposed to it, and the second was that the members of the West End Ratepayers' Association were against it. Of course, there was nothing more to be said. In 1892 the proposal came in under the auspices of the London County Council, and in those days that fact alone was enough to kill it. His hon. friend the Member for Wandsworth said—
  "My main ground of objection is that this Bill is promoted by the London County Council. I hope to show the House before I have done, and in a few minutes, that this Bill is the thin end of the wedge for proposals which, if carried to their logical conclusion, will be of a colossal description, involving London in socialistic experiments for extracting capital from the pockets of those ratepayers who have it and turning it into the pockets of those who have rates to be repaid Heaven knows when."
  On that occasion Sir Charles Fraser, the Member for Lambeth, said—
  "Every Member at the present time recognises that but for the attention of the police in Bridge Street we should all be killed every afternoon."
  That, of course, again killed it at once. Later, they had the first suggestion of the

  707
  æsthetic objection. Several Members came forward as the champions of aesthetics and the supporters of the Bill were the Vandals and the Philistines who desired to ravish the slender beauty of Westminster Bridge. The bridge was so beautiful and slender that it was by no means to be ravished by a tram-car, even though hundreds of 'buses might pass over it. The slender beauty of the bridge was vamped up year after year until it would run no longer. In 1902, hon. Members turned their attention to the Embankment. The hon. Member for East Marylebone, in opposing the Bill of that year, said—
  "The enjoyment of those who used the Embankment would be destroyed by the everlasting clang of the gong and the grating of wheels attached to the trams. The beauty of the Embankment, too, would be greatly discounted by the hideous overhead wires. If a plebiscite of the inhabitants of London were taken, be would undertake to say that there would be an overwhelming majority against this vandalism and vulgarity."
  The hon. Member for Uxbridge said that the scheme was "an attempt to get over the bridge by a sidewind. "That settled it at once. Last year came a new argument, "Wait for the Report of the Royal Commission." This year the same argument was doing duty; and so it would go on for years. He had a number of documents which he would read to the House, showing how the opposition to the Bill had been organised. It was purely an omnibus proprietors' opposition. A circular letter issued by Mr. Rickards, hon. secretary of the Jobmaster's Protection Association, was as follows—
  "I am informed that on Monday evening next, at about 9 p.m. in the House, Sir Frederick Banbury, M. P., is moving an Instruction for the opposition of London County Council Tramways over Westminster Bridge and along the Embankment. As this is a matter of the greatest importance to our trade in general (in fact to all persons who drive about London), my Association, representing upwards of 40,000 horses working in the streets of London, would esteem it a great favour if you would make it convenient to be in your seat that evening and support Sir Frederick Banbury's opposition to this scheme."
  He had another communication from a gentleman, who, he understood, was a wholesale hay and corn dealer, asking him to oppose the scheme. A communication issued to the shareholders of the London General Omnibus Company had
  708
  come into his hand. It was in the following terms—
  "I am directed to inform you that the London County Council has again brought forward in the House of Commons its scheme for a tramway over Westminster Bridge. This is most important to the omnibus trade, and my directors will be obliged if you personally will write to your local M. P., or any other Member you may know, urging him to be present in the House on Monday next, the 7th inst., and support Sir Frederick Banbury's Motion against such tramways. As you doubtless know, the Royal Commission on London Traffic is still considering the whole question, and until they report it is absolutely premature to bring forward more tramway schemes."
  A communication from Thomas Tilling, Limited, ran as follows—
  "As a shareholder in this company I wish to call your attention to the fact that the London County Council are promoting a will in Parliament, one of the proposals in which is to construct a tramway over Westminster Bridge, which, if it succeeds, will seriously affect the earnings of the omnibus portion of the company's business. I would, therefore, ask you to get the Member of Parliament for your district to support Sir Frederick Banbury. Bart., M.P.'s Instruction to the Committee that the tramway in question be omitted from the London County Council's proposed measure. Sir Frederick Banbury's Motion is down for Monday next, 7th March, so that no time should be lost, in communicating with your Member."
  The opposition to the proposal of the London County Council proceeded mainly from the omnibus companies, and that opposition had been very carefully organised and engineered by them. He should vote for the proposal, whatever might be the Report of the Royal Commission, and hon. Members opposite would vote against it whatever that Report might be. [Cries of "Oh!"] Well, some of them would. The great trouble and inconvenience which working people experienced in getting on the trams at the Westminster Bridge terminus under existing arrangements would be removed if the scheme of the County Council were adopted. It would be an unspeakable boon to the poor working people of North Camberwell, and he pleaded with the House not to refuse it.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD ()said it was rather unfortunate that a proposal of this kind should be discussed from the point of view of interested motives. He thought it would be much fairer to discuss the proposal on its

  709
  merits. He said that the proposal in the Bill was that there should be a connecting link between the two systems of tramways, so as to have a continuous route from the north to the south of London. Before the House decided against that proposal, and adopted the Instruction of the hon. Baronet, there ought to be some weighty argument put before the House to show why the London County Council should not make that connecting link. It was said that there was no necessity for a continuous route. Now he had been a member and chairman of the Tramways Committee of the Liverpool Corporation, which had the most successful system of tramways in England, and therefore he claimed to know what would be the conveniences and inconveniences involved in a continuous route. Their experience in Liverpool was that a continuous route presented the greatest advantages to the community. It was found that if there was excessive traffic for ashort distance in the middle of a long route and special cars were put on simply for the portion where the excessive traffic existed these did not accommodate the public, whereas, cars which ran from end to end of the route did. It was stated by the supporters of the Instruction that there was no evidence of any traffic from north to south, or vice versa; but no sensible person who looked at the traffic on Westminster Bridge would deny that such a statement was unfounded. A third objection to the London County Council's proposal was that an alternative scheme was in existence, viz., a proposed tube railway; but that was no reason against the London County Council's scheme for making a continuous route in the open air across the bridge. Another objection was that this scheme would spoil the Embankment for fast traffic; but he contended that it would do nothing of the sort, and that the electric trams being themselves in the nature of fast traffic would rather assist the other fast traffic. It was perfectly preposterous to say that this connecting link would, as alleged, prevent members of the Royal College of Physicians from examining their patients. He insisted that the scheme of the County Council to do away with two termini, both of which must cause con-
  710
  gestion, and to make the route continuous from north to south, thus avoiding the congestion necessarily involved in the existence of a terminus, would prevent the existing congestion at the south end of Westminster Bridge. He had examined all the evidence, and had come to the conclusion that the London County Council were grappling in earnest with the serious problem of the congestion of traffic in the streets of London, and the House should hesitate before it interfered with the legitimate work of that important body.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS ()said that his hon. friend the Member for Chelsea had referred to the circumstances under which the City of Westminster had no voice or representation in the consideration of this matter; and that fact justified him in taking part in the debate. It was rather remarkable that the local authority should have no locus standi in regard to a proposal which, dealt with its own area. The City Council of Westminster considered that this tramway would be a great obstruction to locomotion. He supported the Instruction, but he should not do so if he were convinced that it would interfere in any way with the extension of the facilities of locomotion in London, or if he thought a tramway was the only way of relieving the daily inconvenience of the working classes who had to cross the bridge on foot. He approached this subject from the point of view, not whether increased facilities for locomotion for London were needed, but whether this proposal of the London County Council was the best means to promote these increased facilities. His contention was that the action of the London County Council in promoting this Bill was premature and utterly unreasonable, when the Royal Commission to which, the whole question of London locomotion had been formally committed for consideration was taking evidence week after week upon this very point of the advisability or inadvisability of carrying a tramway over Westminster Bridge, and had not yet reported. Why should the House be called upon to forestall the decision of the Royal Commission, and to discredit or disregard the evidence laid before it? His experience did not incline him to place an inordinate value

  711
  on the decisions of Royal Commissions, but there were Royal Commissions and Royal Commissions; and the present Royal Commission on London Traffic was a very good one, and was taking evidence in an impartial manner. He deprecated very much the tone adopted by the hon. Member for Camberwell as to the opposition which that hon. Gentlemen said had been engineered against the Bill. He wanted to know exactly what the hon. Member meant by his remarks. Did he mean that that opposition was any other than the ordinary opposition which was always organised by any trade or industry injuriously affected by a Bill before that House, or did he mean that it was organised in some improper way to unduly influence Members of that House? [Dr. MACNAMARA: Both.] Very well. He personally looked at the question entirely apart from the interests of any trade, and he thought the hon. Member ought to give every hon. Member of that House credit for freedom from such undue influence. The hon. Member proceeded to describe the ingenuity of the objectors in finding reasons against this proposal. But that did not compare with the ingenuity of the promoters in finding arguments for it. This proposal had been before the House for many years, and during the greater part of that time all that had been heard in favour of it was that it would carry passengers across the bridge to the City; but that argument fell to the ground when it was shown that the passengers who crossed over the bridge did not enter the omnibuses going to the City. And of all the thousands of omnibuses crossing Westminster Bridge either now when omnibus proprietors were looking everywhere for new routes, or formerly when these omnibuses belonged to the County Council, not a single one had ever turned to the right towards the City. That argument, so long relied on, having failed, the promoters turned to a new one. The new street from the Strand to Holborn with a shallow tramway below came as a deus ex machiua to the promoters of this Bill,and they thought that that was an argument for carrying the tramway over Westminster Bridge. He was not going to deny that the linking up of the tramways north and south would be an advantage, but this he believed should
  712
  be done by a tunnel or tube under the river. The House ought to look at the real object of getting a tramway across the bridge, which was to run trams through the already overcrowded streets of the West End. All evidence showed that tramways in the centre of London were the greatest cause of the congestion of traffic. The rigidity of their lines made it impossible to wind through a crowd; and expert opinion, he believed, had come to the conclusion that the real solution of this difficult problem of London locomotion would be found to be tube railways for long distances motor-buses for short ones in the central area, and trams in the less crowded streets and roads of the outer area.
  They had an endless amount of testimony that the omnibus possessed greater facilitiesfor moving amongst traffic than the tramway. This proposal would put on one side the valuable evidence obtained by the Commission, and would declare that tram lines were the best means of locomotion in the crowded streets in the centre of London. He, for one, could not accept that view, and he submitted that before sanctioning this scheme the House should await the Report of the Royal Commission on the question of street traffic.
  MR. JOHN BURNS ()thought it a remarkable commentary on the ways of the House of Commons that it should be engaged not with high Imperial matters but in debating at that hour parish pump politics, which, had they concerned any other body than the London County Council, would have been left to be settled by the local authorities concerned. It was the London County Council alone among municipalities whose wishes were to be ignored when it sought the material interests of the vast population whom it served. Johannes-burg and Jerusalem could do as they: pleased, but whenever the poor London; County Council wished to give effect to the material interests of the vast population it served it was tabooed and ignored. What were the facts of this case? The opposition to the Bill was; limited to about fifty omnibus proprietors, reinforced by certain promoters of tube railways from the other side of the Atlantic and in the interests largely

  713
  of alien shareholders. The tube promoters had joined the omnibus proprietors solely because they feared the trams would interfere with their business between Westminster, Charing Cross, and Blackfriars. The House ought not to defer to pushful promoters from the other side of the Atlantic, and thereby prevent the municipality of London from giving its vast population rapid means of transit from north to south. Another interest had expressed itself that night—the interest of a bonâ fide public represented by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down—that was, the fashionable area of Westminster and Belgravia, whose inhabitants did not want the poor of London to come across the river. But the people of London wanted to go north and south by tramway, and they ought not to be resisted by fashionable caprice or transient prejudice. Why should Westminster object? The Council had within the last four years voted a million of money for one street almost within the precincts of Parliament, and they had also street improvements for Westminster and the Strand alone. The workmen in the south of London had a right to their quid pro quo, and they preferred to take it in the shape of ½d. tram fares between Westminster and Lambeth. The hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham was of course opposing the Bill. He admired the hon. Gentleman's consistency, but he was afraid he would soon enjoy it in splendid isolation. The hon. Member came from a district in which, out of forty Unionist candidates who stood at the last County Council election in South London, five only were returned. "Mene, mene, tekel upharsin." Let him read the handwriting on the wall. The hon. Member's reasons for opposing the Bill were certainly not endorsed by his own constituents. It was argued that the omnibuses did not use the Embankment. The answer was that the Embankment was not a good route in which to get their passengers. But the same rule did not apply to tramway traffic. In the case of tramways it was a question of through passengers. The hon. Member for Westminster had done splendid service by his action in connection with the hospitals of South Africa. Let him exercise his charity a little nearer home. There was,
  714
  under the present circumstances, much congestion in the neighbourhood of the Nelson Column.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: That it not in my constituency.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: It is next door to it. Let the hon. Member note what was daily occurring near the Nelson Column. Young women could be seen fighting with young men to obtain entrance to omnibuses. It was a sad sight, and a recent development in London, due, he feared, to the growth of papers like the Daily Mail. He noticed that nearly every young man who pushed a woman aside had a copy of the Daily Mail in his hand. If these trams were laid all that pushing would cease, and the congestion of traffic would be got rid of. The objection had been raised to tramways that they preserved a rigid line. But nearly all motorists supported the Bill on that very ground, preferring traffic about the conduct of which there was no uncertainty to the three thousand omnibuses which plied in the streets. The congestion which now prevailed on the south side of the river was due to the fact that the terminus was there, and would be greatly diminished if a through system of tramways were established. Colonel Yorke had given very strong evidence in favour of this scheme. The Member for Peck-ham, however, preferred to rely on the testimony of a police inspector. Had he noticed that his name was "Novice"? Even that inspector, however, admitted that large numbers of accidents occurred at the Westminster tram terminus, and that the remedy was to carry the trams across the bridge.
  MR. MALCOLM (): What is it going to cost?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: £60,000 or £70,000. The question of cost does not need consideration for the tramway system is a remunerative undertaking. He asked Parliament to think imperially on this subject. The broad issue was whether the bridge affording communication between the north and the south of London should be opened for traffic. The County Council were prepared to

  715
  defer to the opinion of the police and to the public convenience as to the particular part of the road on which the tramway should be constructed, and under these circumstances he could not see any occasion for opposing the Bill. The omnibus proprietors—not the men—constituted the only reason, and in his opinion they ought not to be allowed to prevent London having that system of traction across the river which the Bill provided and which was so generally desired.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEYsaid he had always voted for this tramway until last year, because he thought there should be a line of communication between north and south. He was quite aware of the great hardship the people had to suffer in changing at the end of the Westminster Bridge Road. Circumstances, however, had convinced him that this was a great question, which must be considered as a whole. The condition of London traffic had been referred to a Commission, and he was convinced that the only way in which efficient means of communication could be established throughout London was to look at this problem as a whole. The difficulty was due to the system having grown up in this accidental way and there was no uniformity in it. He did not think it was fair to quote indi-

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Compton, Lond Alwyne

  Fardell, Sir T. George.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Cullinan, J.

  Forster, Henry William

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir. Michael Hicks

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Bigwood, James

  Delany, William

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Bond, Edward

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Gilhooly, James

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hambro, Charles Erie

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc.

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Chapman, Edward

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Heaton, John Henniker

  vidual sentences from the evidence which had been given before the Commission to show the opinion of any members of that Commission. The hon. Member for Battersea had referred to the chairman's opinion, but the chairman of that Commission had not given any opinion, and he had only asked questions, and to infer from his questions that he was in favour of this or that tramway was not fair. He was certainly of opinion that the only way to remedy congestion was to have communication right through. He should, however, ask that this matter should be delayed until the Report of the Commission, which was sitting now two days a week considering this enormous problem. The Commission had been sitting for over a year, and he believed they would report before the end of this year, and the question would then be in a proper shape to be considered. It would be very much to be regretted if this most important problem was forestalled by the adoption of this scheme. He therefore urged the House to wait for this Commission to give a general Report upon the whole question of London traffic.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Aves. 159: Noes. 131. (Division List No. 70.)

  Helder, Augustus

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

  Milvain, Thomas

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Sheehy, David

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

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

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Hunt, Rowland

  O'Dowd, John

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichetster)

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  O'Malley, William

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm Edw. M.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Percy, Earl

  Tuff, Charles

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Valentia, Viscount

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N.R

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Randles, John S.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Reddy, M.

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

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cum. Penr.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Renwick, George

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Frederick Banbury and Mr. Whitmore.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Roche, John

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Maxwell, W.J.H (Dumfriesshire

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork. N. E.)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Moore, William

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Asher, Alexander

  Gordon, Hn. J.E.(Elgin & Nairn)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Murphy, John

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Grant, Corrie

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Black, Alexander William

  Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Boland, John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Brigg, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rea, Russell

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  Bull, William James

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Burns, John

  Hoult, Joseph

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Butcher, John George

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Runciman, Walter

  Cameron, Robert

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Russell, T. W.

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Samuel, Herbert L (Cleveland)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lambert, George

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Langley, Batty

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Shackleton, David James

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Crombie, John William

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Crooks, William

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Lloyd-George, David

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lough, Thomas

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sullivan, Donal

  Edwards, Frank

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Ellice, Capt E C (S. Andrw'sBghs

  M'Crae, George

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

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

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Toulmin, George

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  718

  719

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

  Wood, James

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Dr. Macnamara and Mr. Watson Rutherford.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Motion made and Question put, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the London County Council (Tramways
  The House divided: Ayes, 161; Noes, 123. (Division List No. 71.)
  and Improvements) Bill to omit Tramway No 2A." (Mr. Whitmore.)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.)

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Rea, Russell

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Asher, Alexander

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

  Runciman, Walter

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Russell, T. W.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Black, Alexander William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

  Boland, John

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Shackleton, David James

  Brigg, John

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Lambert, George

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Langley, Batty

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Bull, William James

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Burns, John

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Butcher, John George

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Caldwell, James

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lloyd-George, David

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lough, Thomas

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

  Cremer, William Randal

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Crombie, John William

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Toulmin, George

  Crooks, William

  M'Crae, George

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Edwards, Frank

  Moore, William

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

  Ellice, Capt EC (St. Andrw's Bghs

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Murphy, John

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wood, James

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

  Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin &Nairn)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Dr. Macnamara and Mr. Watson Rutherford.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Grant, Corrie

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Pym, C. Guy

TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
(SECOND READING.)
Order for Second Reading read.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,)formally moved the Second Reading of the Bill.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Mr. J. H. LEWIS ()expressed his satisfaction that a Bill of this kind had been introduced, because he hoped that under it a remedy would
722
be found for a grievance under which his constituents suffered. The boundaries of the Holywell telephone area could not be defended on any principle whatever. The boundary included the towns of Holywell, Greenfield, and Bagillt—an urban community of 8,000 or 9,000 inhabitants; then it went across the mountains to the Vale of Clwyd, down the middle of the Vale, dividing it in a most extraordinary manner, as far as a point near Bodfari, and then back over the mountains to Holywell Holywell was completely separated from other telephone areas, to the great inconvenience of the people of the district.

723
Appeals had been made time after time to various Postmaster-Generals, but without success. If the right hon. Gentleman would only look into the matter he would see that the area was a perfectly absurd one. The question excited considerable interest locally; it undoubtedly constituted a substantial grievance, which he hoped means would be found of remedying under this Bill.
LORD STANLEYpromised to look into the matter at once and communicate with the hon. Member. He ventured to appeal to the House to allow the Second Reading to be taken; it was necessary that this stage should be taken at the present Sitting, and several hon. Members desired to discuss the next Order on the Paper.
Mr. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)complained that no explanation had been made of the Bill.
Lord STANLEYsaid that at the request of several hon. Members he made his explanatory statement on the money Resolution in Committee.
Mr. WEIRurged the right hon. Gentleman to see that in any negotiations that might ensue the National Telephone Company did not get the best of the bargain. He also asked whether Scotland was likely to participate in any benefit which might accrue from the Bill.
Lord STANLEYsaid that according to his experience Scotland generally managed to get her share.
Mr. WEIRfeared the contrary was
724
too often the case. Scotland fared far worse than Ireland, but things would be very different if she had a solid phalanx of eighty Members to press her claims.
Bill read a second time and committed for Monday next.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1)) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [24th March], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Question again proposed.
MR. KILBRIDE (resuming his speech)asked whether the attention of the Estates Commissioners would be directed to the housing provisions of the Land Act before they came to a final conclusion. The debate had been initiated for the purpose, not of criticising the action of the Estates Commissioners, but of obtaining information so that the country might know how the Land Act was working. There were many questions on which more light was wanted. Would the Estates Commissioners of their own initiative approach a new tenant to ascertain whether he was willing to accept compensation and leave the farm? Or where a new tenant had purchased under former Land Acts and the farm might be regarded as an estate, would a similar course be taken by the Estates Commissioners? He pressed the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence with Lord Dunraven with a view to getting him to interest himself in the evicted tenants of Glynn, county Limerick. He did not desire to go into any further details on that subject; it

725
had been mentioned more than once in the Press; and if the right hon. Gentleman would make inquires he would probably find that the friendly intervention of Lord Dunraven would have a salutary effect. A further question was whether, in the case of sales in Connaught, the Estates Commissioners had sanctioned, or would sanction, the sale of property on which there were any number of uneconomic holdings; or whether, if the landlord had another estate in the neighbourhood on which there was a good deal of untenanted land, they would refuse to sanction the sale of the one without the other so that the uneconomic holdings would disappear. The particular case he had in mind was that of the O'Conor don's estate. He further complained of an alleged inconsistency in replies given by the Department to certain Questions put by the hon. Member for East Galway. The officials of the Department ought to be more careful to see that the information supplied to the right hon. Gentleman was accurate.
MR. WYNDHAMthought hon. Members were making far too much of the incident referred to. The question put to him was whether there had been a correspondence with the Estates Commissioners. That conveyed to his mind the idea of a business correspondence between the Estates Commissioners and the landlord in question. He stated that there had been none, and that was the fact. A letter was then sent to him saying that this landlord had had a conversation with the Estates Commissioners. That was quite true, and he was much in favour of the landlords putting themselves in touch with the Estates Commissioners in an informal manner. But the two matters were wholly distinct.
MR. ROCHEsaid that the question he put was whether this landlord was correct in stating that his mode of procedure had the sanction of the Estates Commissioners, and the reply given was that there had been no correspondence or communication whatever.
MR. KILBRIDEhad no objection to landlords who did not understand the Act corresponding with the Estates Commissioners for the purpose of obtaining enlightenment. What he complained of was that the Department in Dublin, in sending a reply to the right hon. Gentlemen, should give what was undoubtedly a true answer, but not the whole truth, thereby placing the Chief Secretary in a false position. He was not at all satisfied with the manner in which the office of the Estates Commissioners was managed. It was very short-handed, and he understood that the Chief Secretary had complained of the difficulty he experienced in getting from the Treasury sufficient money for the clerical work.
Mr. WYNDHAMsaid he had made no complaint of the Treasury. What he had said was that they started the office with a staff which would certainly not be big enough when the operations developed.
MR. KILBRIDEsaid the impression given was that the right hon. Gentleman had found difficulty in getting from the Treasury sufficient money for the proper carrying on of the work. Were the clerks Civil servants? If not, by whom had they been recommended for appointment? The successful working of the Act would largely depend on the personnel of those who had the carry-

727
ing out of its [details, and yet it was said in Dublin that when it came to the question of appointing secretaries the Estates Commissioners were not allowed to appoint the men they desired to appoint and in whom they had full confidence, but that Sir John Franks, the Secretary of the Land Commission, insisted on making the appointments. One other point to which he wished to refer arose in connection with the Leinster estate. The greater part of that estate was composed of agricultural land, but there were certain town holdings, and he desired to know whether such an estate would be sold as a whole. The same point rose in the case of Castlereagh. These questions were exercising the public mind in Ireland, and he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would endeavour to supply the desired information.
Mr. POWERreferred to a Question placed on the Paper with regard to the trial in Mayo of two police constables for perjury. The constables had sworn that—
Mr. ATKINSONremarked that it was hardly fair to discuss a charge while proceedings were pending.
Mr. POWERsaid he desired not to discuss the charge, but to ask what procedure the Crown had adopted.
MR. ATKINSONsaid that no summonses had yet been served or witnesses examined. The men would be brought up in the ordinary way next month.
Mr. POWERsaid that, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would
728
guarantee that all the parties would be examined, that was all he wanted.
Mr. ATKINSONsaid the hon. Member surely did not expect him to state how the proceedings would be conducted or what witnesses examined in a pending prosecution. It was absolutely impossible for him to give such information. He would take care that all necessary, proper, and reliable witnesses were brought forward to sustain the charge. The prosecution was under his care, and the hon. Member could rest assured that everything would be done to secure the proper administration of justice.
Mr. FLYNNsaid he wished to call attention once more to the practice of jury-packing in Ireland. At a recent assizes, the Lord Chief Baron, referring to men who had been ordered to stand aside, had used the following remarkable words—
"What is the use of keeping men here when they are never allowed to serve?"
Surely after such an expression from so high an authority the practice of ordering jurors to stand aside would be abandoned by the Crown. The practice had grown into such a persistent habit on the part of the Crown prosecutors that it was followed even in the smallest of cases, and resulted in what he contended was a prostitution of justice. Jurors were brought at their own expense from remote parts of the country; they had to remain in the city several days; if they did not appear they were liable to be heavily fined, and then when they went to enter the box they were told to stand aside, the implication being their oath was not to be relied upon, and that they would not try the case in a fair and impartial manner.
MR. ATKINSONsaid it was not only inaccurate but ridiculous to suggest that a charge of perjury was conveyed against any juror who was ordered to stand aside. The same power was given to j the prisoner, as to the Crown, to challenge jurors to whom objection was taken. So necessary was this right in Ireland if a fair jury was to be secured, that even in civil cases it had been found necessary to give the right to challenge six jurors.
MR. MACVEAGHasked why jurors were not challenged in the North of Ireland.
MR. ATKINSONsaid that was an amusing inquiry, seeing that there had not occurred elsewhere a case in which so many jurors had been ordered to stand aside as happened at a trial in Belfast two yeare ago.
MR. MACVEAGHasked the name of the case to which the right hon. and learned Member referred.
MR. ATKINSONsaid he referred to the case of the man Trew. The hon. Member for Cork was quite mistaken in supposing that the Lord Chief Baron had conveyed any censure on the conduct of the Crown. The suggestion was that the challenging of jurors had been going on to such an extent that the Lord Chief Baron came to the conclusion that it was useless to bring up the jurors to be sworn. What were the facts? Four jurors were ordered to stand aside, and it was the first case in which any jurors were challenged. It was difficult to understand, therefore, how the Lord Chief Baron could have come to the opinion he was alleged to have expressed.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: But did he use the words? They speak for themselves.
Mr. ATKINSON: I believe the Lord Chief Baron made an observation, but I understand that the report is inaccurate.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred the matter to the Lord Chief Baron—
MR. ATKINSON: I have not communicated with the Lord Chief Baron.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Then if you want an explanation you ought to ask him for it.
MR. ATKINSONsaid he had no right to examine the Lord Chief Baron, but he had ascertained from the Crown solicitor that it was the first case in which any jurors were challenged, so that the report in the paper was necessarily inaccurate.
MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLpointed out that the Tory organ in Cork criticised the action of the Lord Chief Baron in using the words.
MR. JOHN REDMONDasked whether it was not evident that the Lord Chief Baron was speaking not only of his experience on that particular occasion, but of his long experience, extending over many years, of the practice.
MR. ATKINSONdid not know how that might be, but the facts were as he had stated. With regard to the Questions concerning the Land Act, he could not state precisely whether the Estates Commissioners had formulated any schemes for labourers' cottages, but he believed they had had their attention directed to the matter. In the new Labourcrs Bill would be found drastic provisions enabling schemes formulated by the Estates

731
Commissioners to be carried out at once with great thoroughness. In the case of a tenant who had purchased his holding, it would be quite impossible for the Estates Commissioners, under the Act, to purchase that holding in order to sell it to somebody else. There was nothing to prevent a tenant selling the holding to another purchaser, but the Estates Commissioners would have no power to require him so to sell. The hon. Member was entirely in error with regard to the appointment of secretaries to the Commissioners. The formation of the staff was a matter of negotiation, and during the negotiations it was not desirable to appoint a staff more than adequate to deal with the work at the particular moment, but it was necessary that the arrangements should be sufficiently elastic to allow of extension when the work increased.
MR. KILBRIDEsaid his complaint was that the expressed desire of the Commissioners to have certain gentlemen appointed as their secretaries was overruled by Sir John Franks.
MR. ATKINSONunderstood that that was a mistake. As to the status of the clerks, some were Civil servants; some had been transferred from another department, some were temporary, and some were permanent. With regard to the particular estates mentioned by the hon. Member, it was highly undesirable to discuss in Parliament questions at present pending before the Estates Commissioners, who would have to decide as best they could on the matters before them. If a question of law arose there was suitable machinery for referring the matter to the legal head of the Commissioners for decision. That course had
732
been taken in several cases, and decisions had been given enabling the Commissioners to proceed with their administrative work. Another question was with regard to the sale of town holdings. The Act was intended for the sale of agricultural land. There might be isolated cases to the contrary, but it was never intended that town holdings should be purchased under the Act, or that the money provided should be absorbed by the purchase of town holdings from town tenants.
MR. WEIR ()called attention to the inaction of the Congested Districts Board for Scotland. For years past they had been hoarding their money, and although recently they had been spending it more freely they were not dealing with the most congested districts. In the Island of Lewis not a yard of land had been secured under the Act. The Board was primarily established for the purpose of securing land for the people, for the extension of holdings, and for the migration of the people, but not one of those purposes had been served in this Congested Island. Several years ago twenty-nine quarter-acre sites for fishermen's dwellings were secured, but the conditions were such that only men who had broken the law were able to obtain them. He did not believe in breaking the law; he preached the gospel of peace, but he was afraid it was a mistake, and that his constituents followed his advice to their hurt. If they broke the law they would probably receive more attention. The conditions for these dwellings, although they had been modified, were still so onerous that there had been only twenty applicants, and not one site had been allotted. Houses of the most insanitary character existed, cattle being

733
separated from human beings by a mere hand rail. Moreover, the apathy and indifference of a Government Department had allowed the fishing industry to be ruined. A Report of the most distressing character had been presented with regard to the Island of Lewis. Why did not the Government take action on that Report? A Government Bill had been introduced to amend the Congested Districts Board Act, but simply because the hon. Member for Mid Lanark placed a "block" on the Paper, the Government shivered in their shoes, and notwithstanding their magnificent majority, withdraw the Bill. That was a miserable conclusion for the Government to come to. Had the Scottish Office approached, Major Matheson the proprietor of the Island of Lewis, and asked him to break up some of the large farms? If not, why not? And why were not the deer forests broken up? The hon. Member was continuing to deal with the condition of the Island of Lewis when
Mr. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member was repeating, in precisely the same language, statements he had already made in his speech.
Mr. WEIRsaid he had no desire to indulge in repetition. He urged that some system of technical education should be instituted in the Island, so that the young people might be able to go out into the world and hold their own. Another thing that could be done was to approach the railway and steamship companies with a view to getting lower rates for the conveyance of fish, as the present rates were absolutely prohibitive. A matter which ought to be dealt with by the Local Government Board was the number of uncertified deaths in Scotland, specially in the
734
Highlands. Happily the Highland people were not likely to administer poison to their fellows, but the system offered great opportunities for it. In conclusion he pressed for a better service in connection with the provision of cruisers for the protection of the fisheries.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,)thought the hon. Member had been hardly fair in charging the Congested Districts Board with hoarding up funds, when he knew that quite recently large purchases had been made, and that the development of the estates which had been purchased would be productive of considerable benefit.
MR. WEIRsaid his contention was that the Board did not pay the slightest attention to the most congested part.
Mr. SCOTT DICKSONsaid they were obliged to take estates where they could get them. Most of the matters to which the hon. Member had referred had been brought up on many previous occasions, and no advantage would accrue from repeating the replies then given. He would, therefore, content himself by saying that he would bring the question raised by the hon. Member before the notice of his hon. friend the Secretary for Scotland.
MR. MARKHAM ()said that during the South African war commissions were given to a number of men from the ranks, and he understood that most of those men had been "hustled" out of the Army in a manner which was not creditable to the service or to the country. He hoped the War Office would see that the few remaining officers of the class he referred to were not "hustled" out in the same way.
Question put.

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

Nicholson, William Graham

Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

Percy, Earl

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Asher, Alexander

Graham, Henry Robert

Pretyman, Ernest George

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Pym, C. Guy

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Grenfell, William Henry

Randles, John S.

Balcarres, Lord

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Rasch, Sir Frederic Game

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

Hambro, Charles Eric

Reid, James (Greenock)

Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'ud'nderry

Renwick, George

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Bignold, Arthur

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

Bigwood, James

Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Bond, Edward

Helder, Augustus

Russell, T. W.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Horniman, Frederick John

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Caldwell, James

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hunt, Rowland

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc.

Kenyon, Hon. Geo T. (Denbigh)

Shackleton, David James

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Kenyon-Slaney, Col.W. (Salop.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Coates, Edward Feetham

Keswick, William

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. R. A. E.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Win.

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Tuff, Charles

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lawson, John Crant (Yorks, N. R

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

Valentia, Viscount

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Leveson-Gower, Frederick, N.S

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

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

Webb, Colonel William George

Davenport, William Bromley

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Weir, James Galloway

Dickson, Charles Scott

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Manners, Lord Cecil

Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund. Lyne)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Markham, Arthur Basil

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Duke, Henry Edward

Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

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

Durning-Lawrenee, Sir Edwin

Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Wood, James

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Milvain, Thomas

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Moore, William

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Morgan, David J. Walthamstow

Forster, Henry William

Morrell, George Herbert

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

Morrison, James Archibald

Fyler, John Arthur

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Gardner, Ernest

Mount, William Arthur

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Allen, Charles P.

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Reddy, M.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Poland, John

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Redmond, William (Clare)

Burke, E. Haviland

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Roche, John

Campbell, John (Armagh S.)

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Murphy, John

Sheehy, David

Cullinan, J.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Sullivan, Donal

Delany, William

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Toulmin, George

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, X.)

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Doogan, P. C.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Flynn, James Christopher

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Dowd, John

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Malley, William

Kilbride, Denis

O'Mara, James

Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.
The House divided:—Ayes, 139; Noes, 39. (Division List No. 72.)
Adjourned at twenty minutes after One o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—South-Western and Isle of Wight Junction Railway (Extension of Time).
And also the Certificate that the further proofs required by the Standing Orders Committee in respect of the following Bill have been given:—Bristol Tramways (Extensions) [H.L.].
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Richard Jaeger's Patent. Petition of Henry Ernest Victor Baron de Barreto, praying for leave to introduce a Bill for rendering valid certain Letters Patent granted to Richard Jaeger in respect of an invention for an improved process for the dry slaking of lime, and apparatus therefor; together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
Victoria University of Manchester Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
North Wales Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Bristol Tramways (Extensions) Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a, and committed. The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Great Northern and City Railway (Extension of Time) Bill. Read 2a, and committed.
Maidenhead Bridge Bill [H.L.]; Liverpool and Wigan Churches Bill [H L.]; Weaver Navigation (Additional Finance) Bill [H.L.]; Weaver Navigation (Constitution and Finance) Bill [H.L.]; Neath, Pontardawe, and Brynaruan Railway Bill [H.L.]; Barry Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill [H.L.]; Cardiff Railway Bill [H.L.]; Great Western Railway Bill [H.L.; Alexandra (Newport and South
582
Wales) Docks and Railway Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; viz.:—

E. Kimberley,

L. Sinclair,

L. Bateman,

L. O'Hagan,

L. Newton (chairman).

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday the 26th of April next at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
Felixstowe Gas Bill; Gomersal Gas Bill; Kettering Improvement Bill; Norwich Water Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Milwr and District Mines Drainage Bill [H.L.]. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Preston and Blackburn Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Metropolitan Common Scheme (Farnborough) Provisional Order Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 41.)

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES)
  No. 3128. Russia (Odessa and district).
  No. 3129. Germany (Estimates for 1904).
  No. 3130. Nantes and district.

  AFRICA, No. 4 (1904).
  Correspondence relating to the recruitment of labour in the British Central Africa Protectorate for employment in the Transvaal (in continuation of "Africa, No. 2(1903)").
  WEST INDIES.
  Return of the exports of sugar and fruit from the British West Indies to England, Canada, and to all other countries, for the years 1899–1900, and 1902–1903. Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  NATIONAL DEBT ANNUITIES.
  Account of the gross amount of all bank annuities, and any annuities for terms of years, transferred, and of all sums of money paid to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and the gross amount of annuities for lives and for terms of years which have been granted for the same, and contracts for payments on death which have been made within the year ended 5th January, 1904. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  SEA FISHERIES BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Select Committee (with the Proceedings of the Committee and Appendix), made, and to be printed. (No. 36.). Minutes of Evidence laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out. Bill reported, with an amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House; and to be printed as amended. (No. 37.)
NEW BILLS.
  OUTDOOR RELIEF (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Outdoor Relief (Friendly Societies) Act, 1894, was presented by the Lord Monkswell; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday the 21st of April next. (No. 38.)
  OPEN SPACES BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to consolidate enactments relating to open spaces, was presented by the Lord Tweedmouth (for the Earl of Onslow); read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 39.)

SITE FOR DUKE OF YORK'S SCHOOL BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order); and Amendments proposed by the Chairman of Committee's Committee made.
Moved, "That the Standing Committee be negatived."—(Lord Windsor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): Why is it proposed to negative the Standing Committee?
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): My Lords, I think it reasonable that the Standing Committee should be negatived because this partakes largely of the nature of a private Bill. It has been before me in the ordinary procedure, and I think it more appropriate that it should not go to the Standing Committee.
On Question, Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow.

SALE OF INTOXICANTS TO CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]
[SECOND READING].
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DUNBOYNE: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I would very briefly explain the necessity for it and its object. I am aware that the particular kind of enactment of which the Act of 1901 is a part is a class of legislation on which your Lordships differ very much; but I do not think there will be any difference of opinion amongst your Lordships that when an Act of Parliament is passed it should be made effective and not be allowed to be evaded, as I think I can show the Act of 1901 has been. That Act provides that every holder of a licence who knowingly sells or delivers, or allows any person to sell or deliver, any description of intoxicating liquor to any person under the age of fourteen years, except in corked or sealed vessels, shall be liable to a penalty. These provisions are continually being evaded, for unscrupulous publicans have discovered that by forbidding their servants to serve children except in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and by exhibiting a notice to that effect in the public house, they are not responsible if their servants supply intoxicating

585
liquors to children contrary to the Act. This, my Lords, was decided in the case of Emary and Nolloth. In that case intoxicating liquor was knowingly sold to a child under the age of fourteen—as a fact, the child was only nine years of age—in a bottle neither corked nor sealed, by a servant of the publican acting within the general scope of his authority and employment, but contrary to the expressed orders and without the knowledge of his master, who was himself in charge of the premises at the time and actually serving in the bar. It was held in that case, and no doubt rightly held, that the publican could not be convicted of "knowingly allowing" a person to sell intoxicating liquor in an uncorked or unsealed vessel to a child under the age of fourteen. Since that decision it has been found impossible to enforce the Act in many places, for notices such as I have described are constantly exhibited in public houses, and, when a child comes in, the publican has merely to turn his back or become engrossed in conversation with a customer, or go into the bar parlour and the child can be served and no one is responsible, the penalty being attached only to the publican and not to the person other than the publican who serves the child. This Bill is intended to meet that defect. It will not in any way interfere with the legitimate business of respectable publicans, and there are many, I am glad to say, who observe the spirit as well as the letter of the law; but it will affect those who might escape from the law and avoid it in the way I have described. This Bill merely provides that the publican and the person who actually serves the child contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1901 shall be made responsible for the penalties imposed by that Act, notwithstanding that any notice that the servants are forbidden to serve children contrary to the Act shall be exhibited on the premises. The Bill is intended to cure a defect which experience has shown to exist in the original Act. I have stated the facts simply and without exaggeration, and I trust your Lordships will allow the Bill to be read a second time. If noble Lords should be of opinion that the Bill goes a little too far in making the publican liable when his employee serves the liquor
586
contrary to his orders and without his knowledge, I would be willing to meet that objection at a further stage; but I trust that your Lordships will allow the Bill, as it now stands, to be read a second time, and that His Majesty's Government will give it their support so that it may not only pass your Lordships' House but be steered with safety through its course in the other House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Dunboyne.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have thought it right to communicate with the Court by whom the decision referred to by the noble Lord was arrived at. I quite agree that in some respects the law may be amended in the direction he desires. But I think the Bill goes a great deal too far. I think that in the circumstances the last two lines would be quite enough to pass into law, namely—
"The agent or servant actually serving or supplying such liquor shall be liable to the penalties aforesaid."
That could not be enforced in the case to which the noble Lord referred because the Act as it stands makes the only person liable to the penalty the licence-holder, and, of course, the servant, not being the licensed person, could not be properly convicted. To make the master liable in any event would be a mistake, and I could not assent to it. I think the noble Lord has a little misunderstood the decision in the case to which he referred. The ground on which the decision was arrived at, according to the Judges' view of what they decided, was that the master had given express orders to his servants not to do the act complained of. It was not a case of a master endeavouring to evade responsibility by pretending not to know what was going on. He was innocent of the act itself and had given most definite orders that it should not be done. Whether the Judges were right or wrong in the interpretation of fact is immaterial. That was the theory upon which they proceeded. If, however, a publican leaves a person in charge of his business so that he is his alter ego, then undoubtedly he would be responsible for

587
the act of that person. I think that the principle which the Court maintained in that case would be very much shaken if this Bill as it now stands were to pass into law. If the noble Lord is prepared to restrict the Bill to the last two lines which I have read, I am ready to assent to the Second Reading.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I am very glad to hear the observations which have fallen from the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, and I trust that the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill will agree to the suggestion which has been made. The legislation in question has done an immense amount of good already, and, if the loophole of evading it to which the noble Lord has referred is stopped, it will save the children of this country from the contamination of the public house. This Act, which has been, on the whole, extremely well worked throughout London, and has not been opposed by the brewers and publicans generally, is one of the most hopeful and useful pieces of temperance legislation that have been passed, and it would be a great pity if, by the rejection of this modified Amendment, it should be spoilt through the existence of the flaw explained by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. I, therefore, hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
LORD DUNBOYNE: I may say that I shall be very pleased to accept the noble and learned Lord's suggestion and to limit the Bill in the way he desires, which can be done when the Bill reaches the Committee stage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday, the 21st April next.

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
[THIRD READING.]
Bill read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS*THE EARL OF WEMYSS moved an Amendment prohibiting the use of a pole-trap "which does not instantaneously kill." In 1822, an Act was passed
588
to prevent Cruelty to Animals—horses, cows, sheep, etc. It was still referred to as Martin's Act, who was known as "the great philanthropist of beasts." His noble friend took a higher flight and sought to be known as the great philanthropist of birds. But there were birds and birds. Now the birds which his noble friend proposed by this Bill to protect were birds of prey which cruelly destroyed other creatures, and did a tremendous amount of damage to valuable property, to grouse and sheep. Lambs' tongues and sheep's eyes were the favourite food of many of these destructive birds. He had received two letters on the subject—one from a Mr. Cruikshank, who wrote from Glasgow, and the other from a gentleman in Edinburgh. Both of his correspondents were thoroughly acquainted with this subject. Mr. Cruikshank wrote that it would be a bad business for grouse moors if this Bill became law, as, on an extensive treeless expanse of a moor, it would be practically impossible for the keepers to kill down the peregrines and sparrow-hawks. The letter from Edinburgh was to the same effect. This correspondent said it would be a serious matter for many Scottish lairds, especially in the northern and western isles, where the peregrine falcon existed in great numbers. His correspondent pointed out, for example, that on the Island of Hoy, which ought easily to realise over 1,000 brace of grouse, only half that number were secured. And why? Six pairs of peregrines nested in the rocky precipices hundreds of feet in height so that they could not be reached by a gun. As these birds would not be attracted by a bait, the only method of catching them was by building cairns on the top of the cliffs, and capping with turf in which a trap was placed. This would be illegal if the Bill passed. His noble friend proposed by this Bill to render illegal the use of the pole-trap. Was there no cruelty through the use of other traps? What about rabbit traps, traps for foxes, and so on? He supported his noble friend in his desire to prevent cruelty where it could be done, and he believed a trap had recently been invented which instantaneously killed the bird caught in it. He had got one of these traps and had suggested to his noble friend

589
in charge of the Bill (the Marquess of Granby) that he should come and inspect and sit upon this trap, but he had not been to see it. This was a Bill to protect birds which cruelly destroyed other creatures. If it became law, and it was impossible to catch birds of prey by the use of the traps in question, so far from cruelty being diminished, it would be very largely increased; because every one of these birds of prey tortured and killed large numbers of other useful birds. He therefore moved his Amendment, the purport of which was that no trap should be allowed which did not instantaneously kill any bird which came into it.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, Clause 1, line 7, to leave out from the word 'instrument' to the word 'any' in line 8, and to insert the words "which does not instantaneously kill.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss).
THE MARQUESS OF GRANBYpointed out that the Bill had gone through all its stages in the House of Commons, and as it had already reached its Third Reading in their Lordships' House he sincerely hoped the Amendment would not be pressed to a Division. The Bill itself was a very simple one, and had met with a considerable amount of approbation in the country. The Amendment would by its extreme severity of action militate against the general operation of the measure, which deserved every consideration at the hands of those who desired to abolish what might be called unnecessary trapping. With regard to the letters Lord Wemyss had quoted, he might say that for a long time past he had forbidden the use of these traps on grouse moors with which he was connected, and had not found the slightest diminution in the number of grouse. The keepers had not experienced any difficulty in keeping down birds of prey. The adoption of the Amendment would lead to vexatious prosecutions, because it was absolutely imposssible to guarantee that every bird would come down on to a particular trap at a particular angle, and any person who had a grudge against any landowner or keeper and saw a bird trapped, might say that death was not
590
instantaneous, and that the bird struggled for some time after it was caught. On many grounds it would be exceedingly unwise to overload the Bill with a provision of the kind proposed, which would make it unworkable and nullify the general good that it would do. He therefore hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
LORD TWEEDMOUTHhoped the House would not accept the Amendment moved by Lord Wemyss, which would take away with one hand all that was given by the Bill with the other. If the Amendment was carried, any pole-trap might be used provided that on the pole, tree, or cairn was fixed a trap which instantaneously killed the bird that settled on it. But how was that to be arrived at? He had seen the traps to which the noble Earl referred. The way in which instantaneous killing was arrived at was by giving such a bend to the claws of the trap as to catch the bird in the body, by which means the fife was squeezed out of it at once. That was a capital arrangement, and, provided that they could assure that a bird of a particular size pitched on to a trap of a particular size, the bird was caught in this way; but it by no means followed that the trap was successful in other cases. A pole-trap was described in the Memorandum of the Bill as a steel spring trap with teeth, generally fastened by a chain to the top of a pole in a clearing of a wood. That was perfectly true so far as some portions of the country were concerned, but frequently a pole or cairn was set up in an open moorland, and owing to the fact that it was the only perching place in the vicinity, not merely birds of prey but every kind of bird perched upon it. All sorts of birds, many of them very harmless, were caught in these traps. His noble friend had said that the preservation of grouse depended on the maintenance of these traps. He could assure him that he was entirely wrong. There were moors after moors throughout Scotland where the keepers were strictly enjoined not to use these traps at all, simply because they caught so many more birds than they were intended to catch, and on which the grouse were fully preserved. Noble Lords, he was sure, were anxious that

591
some of the rarer birds of prey should not be destroyed altogether. He did not suppose there were any birds so frequently caught, or so much injured by these traps, as peregrines and eagles in the open moorlands. He did not think his hon. friends in the other House who were responsible for this Bill were either sentimentalists or people who did not care for sport. Sir Edward Grey and Mr. Sydney Buxton, who backed the Bill, were both distinguished naturalists—they were both sportsmen and neither of them could be called a sentimentalist. The Bill was not intended to pander to any mere feeling of sentiment, but to meet a real desire on the part of a great many people throughout the length and breadth of the country, and he did not believe that the passing of it would interfere in the least with the successful preservation of game, although, of course, in certain places other methods would have to be adopted in order to catch verminous birds.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYexpressed the hope that the Amendment would not be accepted. He had tried the so-called instantaneous-killing trap and could assure the House that it resulted in more cruelty than the other traps. In nine times out of ten it failed to do what it was sold to do. If the Bill passed, as he hoped it would, there would be perfect liberty to trap on the ground. He had consulted an experienced vermin trapper and had been assured that it would be quite easy to get rid of mischievous birds by trapping on the ground.
THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, that as it appeared to be of no use dividing the House upon his Amendment, he would be content to let it drop.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Moved, That the Bill do pass.—(The Marquess of Granby.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

NAVAL PRIZE BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order). Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS (FUNDS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow. (No 40.)
House adjourned at five minutes past Five o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.