Sitting of 5 March 1906

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
One other Member took and subscribed the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table. Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—Ascot District Gas (Electric Lighting) Bill; Brixham Gas (Electric Lighting) Bill; Cheltenham Gas Bill; London and South Western Railway Bill; Rochester, Chatham, and Strood Gas Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
  Cardiff Gas Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
  Derby Gas Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
  Dowlais Gas Bill; Epsom and Ewell Gas Bill; Great Eastern Railway Bill, Read a second time, and committed.
  London and India Docks and Millwall Dock Companies Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
  Merthyr Tydfil Gas Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
  Millwall Dock Bill. time, and committed.
  Peterborough Gas Bill; St. John's (Westminster) Improvement Bill; South Metropolitan Gas Bill; South Suburban Gas Bill. Bead a second time, and committed.
  Southampton Gas Bill; Sutton, South-coates, and Drypool Gas Bill; Tottenham and Edmonton Gas Bill. Bead a second time, and committed.
  Watford Gas Bill, time, and committed.
  Bristol Corporation Bill (by Order). Read a second time, and committed.
  St. Pancras Electricity Bill (by Order). Read a second time, and committed.

PETITIONS.
  ELEMENTARYEDUCATION(RELIGIOUS TEACHING IN CHURCH OF ENGLAND SCHOOLS).
  Petition from Burythorpe, against alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PRISONS (SCOTLAND).
  Paper [Presented 2nd March] to be printed. [No. 74.]
  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1906–7.
  Copy presented, of Army Estimates of Effective and Non-Effective Services for the year ending 31st March, 1907 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 73.]
  ARMY (ORDNANCE FACTORIES ESTIMATES, 1906–7).
  Estimate presented, of the sum required for the year ending 31st March, 1907, to defray the Expense of the Ordnance Factories [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 75.]

  ARMY (MEMORANDUM ON ESTIMATES).
  Copy presented, of Memorandum of the Secretary of State relating to the Army
  46
  Estimates of 1906–7 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  NAVAL WORKS.
  Copy presented, of Memorandum showing Progress and Expenditure, &c, on Items included in the Naval Works Act [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
  Copy presented, of Return of Proceedings during the month of January, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.
  Copy presented, of Fifty-eighth Report from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, with an Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CHURCH ESTATES COMMISSION.
  Copy presented, of Fifty-fifth Report from the Church Estates Commissioners for the year preceding 1st March, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN.
  Copy presented, of Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University of Aberdeen for 1904–5 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.[No. 76.]
  UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN.
  Copy presented, of Abstract of Accounts of the University of Aberdeen for the year ending 15th September, 1905 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 77.]
  RUSSIA (NEW CUSTOMS TARIFF) (INTERIM STATEMENT).
  Copy presented, of Translation of the New Customs Tariff of Russia as modified by Commercial Treaties with Germany and France [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Report, Annual Series, No. 3532 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  1. Public Records (Northern Circuit), Copy of Schedule containing a List and

  47
  Particulars of Classes of Documents existing or accruing in the Office of the Clerk of Assize of the Northern Circuit which are hot considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office [by Act].
  2. Public Records (Board of Agriculture and Fisheries), Copy of Schedule containing a List and Particulars of Classes of Documents existing or accruing in the Office of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (Ordnance Survey Department) which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office [by Act].

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Accounts of the Post Office Savings Bank.
  DR. MACNAMARA: To ask the Postmaster-General what, on the 31st December, 1905, was the total amount due to depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank; what amount of consols was sold during the year 1905, and at what average price; what was the amount of Consuls held on account of the Post Office Savings Bank on the 31st December, 1905, and what is the average price per cent. at which the stock was purchased; whether it is his intention to resume preparation and publication of a balance sheet of the Post Office Savings Bank, after repealing, if that be necessary, Section 9 (2) of the Savings Bank Act, 1904; what is the deficiency, if any, in the income account for the year ended 31st December, 1905; and what was the total amount withdrawn during the year under the new regulation permitting the withdrawal, without notice, of sums not exceeding £1.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The total amount due to depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank on the 31st December, 1905, is estimated to have been £152,113,000. The exact figures cannot yet be given. The amount of consols sold from the Post Office Savings Bank fund during the year 1905 was £1,445,525, the average price being £89 13s. 7d. per cent. The amount of consols held on account of the fund on the 31st December, 1905, was £60,715,140
  48
  the cost price on balance of the stock averaging £102 16s. 5d. per cent. It will, of course, be understood that these consols were bought for the most part in years when the stock bore a higher rate of interest and stood at a higher price. The preparation and publication of the balance sheet, containing a valuation of the securities held on he half of the Post Office Savings Bank, was discontinued in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1902, who considered such a return to be misleading, and I am not aware of any sufficient reason for reversing that decision. The deficiency in the Income Account of the Savings Bank for the year ended 31st December, 1905, is estimated at £92,032. The system of withdrawals "on demand" only came into force on the 3rd July, 1905. The total amount withdrawn under this system between that date and the end of the year was £1,270,163, and it has been found to be a great convenience to the small depositors.

  Scope of Post Office Savings Bank Inquiry.
  MR. HUGH BARRIE: To ask the Postmaster-General if, in the inquiry he has promised re wages and conditions of work of Post Office employees, he will include the Savings Bank, Money Order, and Telephone Departments.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Certain classes of employees in these Departments are included in the reference, but not the supervising or clerical lasses.

  Curriculum of Osborne and Dartmouth Naval Cadets.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can give the number of hours per week devoted to seamanship, navigation, practical engineering, mathematics, physics and chemistry, history, geography, French and Bible study of the naval cadets at Osborne and Dartmouth; whether the Bible study takes place on Sundays; whether he has received any official report as to the adequacy of the time allotted to seamanship; and whether the Admiralty propose to test the elementary knowledge of those boys

  49
  entered without any competition by an examination with boys of the same age at Dartmouth who were entered under the old system of limited competition.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The hours per week devoted to formal teaching and study in the subjects enumerated in the Question are as follows:—

  Osborne.

  Dartmouth.

  Seamanship (instruction with models, etc.) 1½

  1½

  1½

  Seamanship (practical instruction, boat sailing, etc.)

  No time limit

  Navigation

  —

  4

  Practical engineering

  11¼

  9½

  Mathematics

  7½

  6

  Physics and chemistry (science) (one ¾-hour period on alternate weeks

  4½

  7

  History

  3

  3

  Geography

  2¼

  —

  English (one ¾-hour period on alternate weeks)

  3

  2½

  French

  5¾

  6†

  Bible study:—

  Including 1 hour on Sunday at Osborne

  1¾

  1¾

  Including ¾ hour on Sunday at Dartmouth

  The lessons last three-quarters of an hour at Osborne and one hour at Dartmouth. The Bible study or religious instruction takes place on a week-day as well as on Sunday, each cadet having one period on a week-day as well as one on Sunday. The time allotted to seamanship instruction (school and practical work) has been fixed in conference with the officers responsible for the instruction. In addition to the above, however, a considerable amount of time is devoted to gaining practical experience in managing boats under sails, oars, and steam, and to work at sea in the cruisers. The subject of seamanship is one to which the Admiralty attach great importance, and the allowance of time in the curriculum has been fixed with due regard to the age of the boys, and the period during which they will
  †Or, when German is taken, 3½ hours French and 2½hours German.
  50
  be in the training colleges, and to the fact that the course in the colleges is to be followed by six months' training in cruisers as well as three years' subsequent service as midshipmen. The course of study and instruction of the cadets entered at Dartmouth under the old system, differs materially from that laid down for the cadets transferred from Osborne, and any examination of the kind indicated, could only apply in a few subjects, and would therefore be of little or no value for the purpose of comparison. Any comparison that has been made by officers and masters, who have under observation the cadets entered under both systems, although interesting, does not lead to results which in any way affect the principles on which the new system of training has been established.

  Transfer of Coolies under the British Guiana Ordinance.
  CAPTAIN BALFOUR: To ask the Under Secretary for the Colonies if under Sections 181 and 182 of the British Guiana Ordinance of 1891, indentured immigrants working on a plantation are transferred with the sale or lease of the plantation to the service of the purchaser or new lessor, without being consenting parties to such transfer; and, if so, whether any alteration of such provisions is contemplated by the Government.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) Section 181 of the British Guiana Ordinance provides that every lessee whose lease expires is entitled to have the indentures of any immigrants on the plantation transferred for the unexpired remainder of their term of service, to any employer approved by the Immigration Agent General, the lessor of the estate having the first option. Section 182 provides that where a plantation is sold or leased, or passes by devise or inheritance, any indentured immigrant on it shall render the same service to the purchaser or lessee as to his former employer. It must be noted that the immigrant enters into an agreement to emigrate with an officer representing the Colonial Government and not with any individual employer, and the Government is responsible for his well-being. The Government provides by Ordinance

  51
  that he shall not, during the period of his indenture, suffer by unemployment due to any changes affecting the owership of plantations. The particular person who owns the plantation is unknown to the immigrant till he arrives in the Colony, but he relies on the Government for the due observance of the terms offered to him. Under the Ordinance the governor has very wide powers of determining the indentures of any immigrant if, in his opinion, the management of any estate is unsatisfactory. It should be added that under this system of colonisation, through the operation of a labour contract, more than 50 per cent, of the Indian immigrants become permanent settlers. No substantial amendment of the Ordinance seems to be required by any facts at present within the knowledge of the Secretary of State.

  Rules under Trade Marks Act—Conference of Commercial Bodies.
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTTTo ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has summoned a conference of commercial bodies to consider the proposed rules under the new Trade Marks Act; and, if so, whether he has invited the Association of Trade Protection Societies to that conference.
  (Answered by Lloyd-George). Yes, Sir; a conference has been summoned and an invitation sent to the association referred to.

  Irish Industrial School Debts.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say what is the present debt against the industrial schools in Ireland, the amount paid as interest per annum, and to whom payable.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I presume the hon. Member refers to loans to industrial schools made under the provisions of The Industrial Schools (Ireland) Act, 1885. The amount of the loans at present outstanding is £17,956. The amount of interest paid in 1905 was £651 13s. 1d. The payments are made to the Board of Works.

  Erection of Labourer's Cottage on Mear's. Holding at Castlerea.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that at a recent meeting of the Castlerea Poor Law Board it was decided to erect a labourer's cottage on the six-acre holding of a farmer called Mears; and whether, seeing there are ranches containing several hundreds of acres in the vicinity, what steps, if any, will he take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The taking of a site for a labourer's cottage on this holding was authorised by Provisional Order so far back as the 1st August, 1903, the then owner and occupier having agreed to give the site. Subsequently, when the estate of which the holding is part was being sold to the tenants, Mrs. Mears became purchaser of the holding. In the opinion of the Local Government Board it is scarcely probable that Mrs. Mears was not made aware that the district council had been previously authorised to acquire the site; but, in any event, the rights of the district council to take the site cannot now be questioned.

  Teaching of Latin and French in Irish Schools.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the teaching of the Irish language is being provided for by the Commissioners of Education, he will also consider the advisability of restoring Latin and French as extra subjects.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) Latin and French can hardly be considered to be within the scope of Irish primary education. When extra fees in these subjects were given comparatively few schools took advantage of the privilege.

  Alleged Intimidation at Ecclesville.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the 16th February, at an auction of grass on lands upon the Ecclesville estate, close to the town of Fintona, (county Tyrone, a district councillor

  53
  named Culgin and the former tenant named Mullins, who was evicted from the holding, interfered in a manner calculated to intimidate intending purchasers; and that, upon the local postmaster being declared the purchaser of one lot, Mr. Culgin publicly declared that he, being a public servant, had no right to be a land grabber; and what steps the Government intend to take to prevent such proceedings.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that the police were not present on the occasion referred to, but that the landlord's agent made a statement to them to the effect mentioned in the Question. It was open to the agent to take such proceedings as he might have been advised. The police have instructions to preserve order and report offences, but they cannot be expected to attend every auction; and in this case only five persons seem to have been present.

  Alleged Intimidation at Coolgreaney, County Wicklow.
  MR. LONSDALE:To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that John Johnston and Richard Cochrane, who have recently purchased farms on the Coolgreaney estate, county Wicklow, from which the former tenants were evicted, have received notices threatening them with death if they do not clear out within a month; whether in both cases farms have been provided for the evicted tenants elsewhere; and what steps the police are taking to protect these men.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the police authorities that John Johnston and Richard Corcoran, who have purchased their holdings on the Coolgreaney estate, county Wexford, received threatening letters on the 17th February. It is a fact that the persons who were evicted from the holdings in question are in occupation of farms elsewhere; but I think it right to add that I am informed by the police that these men are well-disposed, in comfortable circumstances, and are not suspected of complicity in sending the letters. Messrs. Johnston and Corcoran have been in possession of the holdings referred to for more than sixteen years, and have not beeninterfered
  54
  with till now. They are receiving protection by police patrols.

  Recruiting in Ireland—Seditious Placards.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the opinion of Chief Baron Palles at the Leinster Winter Assizes on 1st December, that to endeavour to dissuade Irishmen from joining the Army, Navy, or Police for the alleged reason that England is the arch enemy of Ireland is seditious; whether he is aware that numerous placards of this character have been circulated in Ireland during the last six months; and what is the nature of the instructions upon which the police are now acting in this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have seen a report of the Lord Chief Baron's address to the grand jury, in which he stated the law in the terms set forth in the Question. I am informed by the police authorities that many leaflets of the character mentioned have been distributed within the past six months, but that recently the dissemination of such matter has become comparatively rare. The police have instructions to seize printed matter of a seditious nature, and to report such evidence as may be available regarding persons distributing the same.

  Destruction of Posters at Dungannon by Police.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any Report was called for from the constabulary at Carrickmore as to their reasons for destroying placards relating to a lecture at the Dungannon Club; what was the nature of the contents of the posters in question; and whether any official communication was sent to the Carrickmore Constabulary expressing approval or disapproval of their action in this case.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) It would be entirely contrary to usage, and not in the interests of the public service, to state what official communications, if any, pass between the Inspector-General and the members of his force. The

  55
  poster in question was in the following terms: "Dungannon Club, Carrickmore. A lecture on the carrying out of the Sinn Fein Policy will be given by Padraic MacArtain on January 6th, at 12.30. The Orange and Green will carry the day."

  Irish Education—Payment of Capitation Grant.
  MR. GIN NELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the annual capitation grant, which forms part of the remuneration of national teachers, due in respect of one year is not paid until the April of the following year, and that this delay in payment is an inconvenience to the teachers; and, seeing that this delay is avoidable, will he take steps to have payment made at the earliest possible date.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The residue of the school grant under the Irish Education Act of 1892 for each calendar year is paid as a capitation grant early in April of the following year. It was found necessary to adopt this course in 1900–1, when the new system of consolidated salaries came into force, and the same course has since been followed. An arrangement, however, has now been made, with the approval of the Treasury, by which about a third of the residual grant in question for the past year will be paid during the current financial year, that is to say, during the present month. I am unable, at present, to make any statement as to the possibility of expediting these payments in future years, but the importance of the Question will not be lost sight of.

  Rents on W.L. Marshall's Estate, Callinaferry, County Kerry.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received from the tenants on the estate of W. L. Marshall, Callinaferry, county Kerry, a document stating that they were unable to pay the prices they had agreed on for the purchase of their holdings; whether, at the signing of the agreements, the agent refused to allow the tenants to submit them to their solicitor; whether
  56
  writs were served, since the signing of the agreements, on some of the tenants for old rents and arrears; whither non-judicial tenants were got to sign agreements making them judicial tenants at the time of the sale, and without any reduction in rent; and whether a thorough investigation will be made before any money is advanced for the purchase of this estate.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) An originating request in respect of the sale of this esta'e has been lodged with the Commissioners. The estate has not yet been inspected. The Estates Commissioners have no information as to what took place between the landlord and the tenants upon or subsequent to the signing of the agreements for purchase. On the 8th November last the Commissioners received a letter on behalf of the tenants, stating that they repudiated the agreements already signed by them. The matter will be fully and carefully considered by the Commissioners when the estate is being dealt with by them.

  Purchases of Land—Kerry Congested Districts.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how much land in congested Kerry has been bought under the Act of 1903 by the Congested Districts Board, giving the average price paid for first-term, second-term, and non-judicial rents.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Congested Districts Board have purchased 38,335 acres of land in the scheduled congested districts of county Kerry, and have paid an average price of nineteen years purchase of first-term rents; twenty-three and three-quarter years purchase of second-term rents; and fifteen and three-fifth years purchase of non-judicial rents.

  Purchase of the Rae Estate, Keel, County Kerry.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board are willing to buy the Rae estate, Keel, county Kerry, and, if so, what is the cause of the delay; whether

  57
  he is aware that the agent, Mr. Huggard, has stated that he will never allow the estate to be purchased by the Board; and whether any steps will be taken to give the Congested Districts Board compulsory powers to deal with the urgent needs of congested districts, especially where landlords and agents adopt an irreconcilable attitude.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Congested Districts Board made an offer for the purchase of this estate in November, 1904, but their offer was declined by the owners. The Board have no knowledge of the statement attributed to Mr. Huggard. I am not at present prepared to make any statement on the subject of compulsory purchase.

  Proceeds of Sale of Irish Estates to London Companies—Report of Committee.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will take into consideration the Report of the Select Committees appointed in 1890 and 1891 to inquire into the disposition of the proceeds of sale of the Irish estates of the London companies, with a view to seeing whether legislative effect could now be given to their recommendations; and whether he can state what is the total amount which those companies received under the Land Purchase Acts, and what is the annual sum which they now expend on educational or charitable purposes in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The conclusions reached by the Select Committee referred to in the Question do not seem to be in accord with the judgments delivered by the Master of the Rolls in Ireland and subsequently by the Court of Appeal there in 1898, and I could not say, without much consideration of the full effect of those decisions, whether legislative measures could be introduced, with a prospect of success, to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee. The total amounts advanced to the different companies, under the Land Purchase Acts prior to the Act of 1903, was £927,009. In addition, proceedings are pending before the Estates Commissioners in respect of the sales, under the Act of 1903, of the
  58
  Mercers Company's estate, involving a purchase money of £191,709, and the Irish Society's est te, the purchase money of which amounts to £88,918. I have no means of ascertaining the annual sum which the companies expend on educational or charitable purposes in Ireland, but am told that it is no longer a large one.

  Purchase of the Estates of the Irish Society.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether applications have been made, under the Land Purchase Acts, for loans for the purchase of part of the estate of the Irish Society; what is the amount applied for, and what stage the proceedings have reached; whether it will be part of the duty of the Estates Commissioners, or of any other public authority, to inquire whether any and what trusts attach to the proceeds of sale; and whether he will inquire as to the possibility of having the purchase money regulated by a charitable scheme, which will secure the economical administration and impartial distribution of these and other funds of the Irish Society.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) An originating application for the sale of lands in the county of Londonderry was lodged by the Irish Society on May 25th, 1905. Advances have been sanctioned in this case, amounting to £88,688, and cash to the amount of £230 has been lodged, making the total purchase money £88,918, and it is expected that the advances in this case will shortly be made. I am advised that it is not part of the duty of the Commissioners to inquire whether any and what trusts attach to the proceeds of the sale, though it might become the duty of the Attorney-General to intervene and take action should the society appear to be failing to carry out such trusts as attach to those proceeds. I am not, however, aware of any reason for apprehending that the trusts on which the estates, or other proceeds, have been judicially declared to be held, are not being, or will not be, faithfully observed. The suggestion made in the last paragraph will not escape my attention, but I cannot estimate the possibilities of giving effect to it.

  Intimidation of Jurors at Galway.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, since the conviction of thirty-six persons for various agrarian offences at the last Galway Summer Assizes, the special jurors who tried these men have been subjected to intimidation; and that the residence of Mr. O. McDermott Lynch, who was a special juror at the late assizes, has been at-tacked by armed men, who fired about a dozen shots through the doors and windows; and will he say what steps were taken to trace these men and to protect special jurors in the discharge of their duty.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that it is not the case that the jurors who tried the thirty-six persons mentioned have been subjected to any direct intimidation. On the night of September 7th last, some months before I tame into office, three shots were fired into the house of Mr. Lynch, who was a special juror at the assizes, but the police, who closely investigated the matter, do not believe that his being a, juror was the cause of the firing. The police used every effort to trace the offenders, but without success. I am not aware that any special steps for the protection of jurors have become necessary.

  Local Councillors and Salaried Appointments
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Local Government Orders in Council (New Accounts Order), amongst other things, enact that members of a council must be twelve months resigned before being eligible as candidates for salaried positions on these councils, and also that a hard labour sentence of imprisonment will be a bar to such persons ever seeking positions under the local boards; and whether, as hard labour was frequently given to public representatives in Ireland under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, this provision will be annulled.
  60
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Order referred to is the Public Bodies Order, which prohibits the appointment as poor rate collectors of persons who, within the previous twelve months, were members of certain public bodies, or who, within the preceding five years, were imprisoned with hard labour. In the latter case the Order gives power to the Local Government Board to assent to departures from the rule. It is not intended to modify the provisions in question.

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants—Case of John Quinn at Lavagh.
  MR. O'DOWDTo ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that John Quinn, an evicted tenant of the estate of Sir Joselyn Gore Booth, situate at Lavagh, near Tubbercurry, county Sligo, has left the question of his reinstatement for settlement to the Estates Commissioners, and that the landlord, the evicted tenant, and the present occupier, Edward Layng, have all signed witnessed agreements, by which they bind themselves to abide by any decision arrived at by the Estates Commissioners; and whether, seeing that these agreements were lodged with the Estates Commissioners over twelve months ago, steps will now be taken with the view of having this evicted tenant restored to his holding.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners have inquired into the case of the evicted tenant, John Quinn, whose holding is at present occupied by Edward Laying, and have informed the owner's solicitors of the advance which they are prepared to make to Quinn for the purchase of the holding if he is restored to it, and of the assistance they are prepared to give towards the settlement of the matter, but they have not yet been informed whether the parties have agreed to accept these terms.

  Rate of Interest on Loans Raised for Erection of Labourers' Cottages.
  MR. SHEEHANTo ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the rates of interest at present chargeable

  61
  under Treasury Minute for loans granted for the purpose of the erection of labourers' cottages in Ireland at periods of repayment not exceeding thirty years, forty years, and fifty years respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The rates laid down by the Treasury Minute are as follow:—For periods of repayment not exceeding thirty years, 3¾ per cent.; not exceeding forty years, 4 per cent.; and not exceeding fifty years, 4¼ per cent.

  Defalcations of the Registrar to the Recorder of Cork.
  MR. WILLIAM ABKAHAM: To ask the Chief
  Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the circumstances which have arisen in Cork in consequence of the defalcations of the Registrar to the Recorder of Cork, Mr. Tristram Curry, who fled the country in December last after appropriating "to his own use a sum of about £3,000, which had been paid into His Majesty's Court in Equity proceedings by suitors and others; if the Treasury intends to replace at once the money stolen by this official of the Court; and what steps have been or are being taken to bring him to justice.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I beg to refer to the Answer which my right hon. and learned friend has now given to the similar Question of the hon. Member for Cork.†

  Congested Districts Board and Occupation of Farms at Cragg and Ardcrone.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the representations of all the local public bodies in connection with the occupation of the farms at Cragg and Ardcrone, county Kerry, by the Congested Districts Board, he can induce the Board to consider a satisfactory settlement of the claims of the former tenants; and if he can state what use has been made by the Board of these farms during the two years they have been in possession of them.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The farms in question were occupied by tenant
  † See Col. 99.
  62
  purchasers under the Land Purchase Acts who, upwards of twelve years ago, lost their interests through default in the payment of their annuities. In 1903 the Congested Districts Board acquired the tenant purchasers' interests in the farms for £300, and they have since redeemed the Land Commission annuity by a payment of £2,793. The Board purchased the farms for migration purposes, but have so far been obliged to use them for grazing. The Board would regard it as entirely against public policy to reinstate defaulting annuitants under the Land Purchase Acts. They have often stated that this must be their policy, and they do not intend to depart from it.

  Incendiarism at Moorpark, near Athenry.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the house of John Harte, of Moorpark, near Athenry, was fired into on 21st December last; and will he say if the police captured the persons implicated, and what was the motive for the crime.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The fact is as stated. The police have made every effort to discover the offender, but so far without success. It is difficult to assign motives where perpetrators are unknown, and I must decline to express any opinion upon that point.

  Boycotting of Martin Fahey at Bullaun County Galway.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that a notice warning the people of the district to shun Martin Fahey for the future, stating that the next notice they would receive if they disregarded this ultimatum would be powder and ball, was posted on a wall at Bullaun, county Galway, on 14th January last; and whether the police have obtained any information as to the origin of the notice or as to the motive which prompted its publication.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The fact is correctly stated in the Question. The police have not succeeded in tracing

  63
  the person who put up the notice; nor can I say what was his motive.

  Purchase of the Warburton Garryhinch Estate.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say upon what date the Warburton Garryhinch Estate, Queen's County, was placed in the Land Judge's Court; and whether he can say, as the tenants are anxious to avail themselves of the provisions of The Land Purchase Act, 1903, what course they should adopt under the present circumstances.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The petition for sale in the case of this estate was presented to the Land Judge in 1885. The order made by the judge was for the sale of the life interest only of the owner. In such case it is, I am informed, impossible to convey the fee simple to purchasing tenants.

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants—Application of James Behan.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a request for reinstatement has been received by the Estates Commissioners from James Behan, 1, Canal View, Dolphin's Barn, Dublin, who claims a farm situated at Bally-brittas, Queen's County, on the estate of Mrs. Cornelia Adair, from which he was evicted in 1898; and whether he can say if the estate in question is before the Commissioners for sale; and, if so, what steps have been taken for the reinstatement of James Behan.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Answer to the first two inquiries is in the affirmative. Behan's application will be considered by the Estates Commissioners when they are dealing with the estate.

  Staff Changes in the Veterinary Department of the Irish Board of Agriculture.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether considerable staff changes are contemplated in the veterinary branch of the Agricultural Department, with a view to introducing a number of fresh officials at an early
  64
  date; and, if so, whether, seeing that allegations have been made in Parliament and by the local public bodies in Ireland respecting the methods of promotion practised in this branch, he will postpone the contemplated changes till Parliament is informed of the result of the promised inquiry into the working of the Department.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The clerical staff of the veterinary branch of the Department is, with the sanction of the Treasury, being increased by one abstractor transferred from another branch, three new abstractors, and one boy clerk. This increase in the staff is immediately necessary to enable the branch to cope with its existing work.

  Effect of Chinese Labour on the Revenues of the Transvaal.
  MR. MACKARNESS: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of Lord Selborne's statements contained in Blue-book Cd. 2819, that the withdrawal of Chinese labour would cause unfavourable results to the financial and commercial interests of the Transvaal, he can say to what extent, during the year, after the advent of the Chinese labourers, there was an increase or a decrease in the total revenue of the Colony as compared with the two years preceding their advent.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Chinese labourers began to arrive in June, 1904. The Transvaal revenue for the year 30th June, 1904, to 30th June, 1905, was £4,405,438. For the two previous years it was £4,683,205 for 1902–3, and £4,423,211 for 1903–4.

  Chinese Labourers and Access to Local Courts of Justice.
  MR. MACKARNESS: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the 9th Article of the Convention of the 13th May, 1904, between the United Kingdom and China, which stipulates that, in every British Colony to which indentured Chinese emigrants proceed, an officer shall be appointed to ensure that the emigrant shall have free access to the courts of justice to obtain the

  65
  redress for injuries which is secured to all persons, irrespective of race, by the local law; whether this stipulation was ignored by the Transvaal Labour Importation Amendment Ordinance, 1905, which shut out the Chinese from the resident magistrates' courts of the Colony; and whether, in amending the Ordinance, the Government will ensure that the Chinese shall have access to these courts, as contemplated by the Treaty.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The jurisdiction conferred by the Ordinance of 1905 on the superintendent and inspectors of foreign labour applies only to offences committed by a labourer, i.e., a coolie labourer, and the coolie is in no sense shut out from the courts in regard to redress for injuries. Even in the case of an offence committed by one coolie labourer against another, the Secretary of State is advised that there is nothing to prevent the aggrieved person seeking redress in the ordinary courts of the Colony in accordance with the stipulation in the 9th Article of the Convention.

  Estate of Private James M'Gowan.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the case of the late Private James M'Gowan or M'Gavan or Murray, who died in Rhodesia, and whose mother is now living in poverty in Longford; whether he is aware that it is believed by deceased's friends that a considerable sum of money, his property, was not accounted for; whether any arrears of pay was due to him in respect of his military service; and, if so, will inquiry be made with a view to its payment to his mother immediately.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I have looked into the case. As the hon. Member was informed by letter, dated the 16th October 1903, and 7th June 1904, James Murray's estate was wound up and the balance (£39) forwarded to his heirs, and the Master of the High Court has not been able to find any trace of a sum of £25 0s. 10½d., said to have been in the possession of the deceased at the time of his death; but has offered to
  66
  render any assistance he can in endeavouring to trace the amount if the relatives will inform him on what ground the inquiry is based. Mrs. Murray was informed in this sense on the 8th of November 1904, and as she has not given any reply it is not possible to take any further steps in the matter. Mrs. Murray was also informed that, as her son deserted from the Rifle Brigade and did not rejoin within three years, any balance due to him from Army funds was forfeited.

  Proportion of White Coloured Labour in Transvaal Mines.
  MR. MACKARNESS: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the statement of the Transvaal Government mining engineer, at page 150 of Blue-book Cd. 2819, that the year before the advent of the Chinese there was one white labourer employed in the mines to every five coloured ones, and that the year after their advent there was only one white labourer employed to every eight coloured ones; and whether he has any official information showing any other reason than the advent of the Chinese for the falling off in the proportion of white men employed.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Secretary of State has noticed the statement referred to. While the number of white men employed has increased, the falling off in the proportion they bear to coloured labourers is no doubt due to the increase of unskilled coloured labour, whether Chinese or native.

  Lord Selborne and Colonel Davies' Speech at Johannesburg.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will obtain definite and authoritative information whether Lord Selbourne made any, and what, protest against the insults levelled in Lord Selborne's presence at the Prime Minister and his supporters by Colonel Davies, of the Imperial Light Horse, in a speech at Johannesburg on the 27th of January last.

  67
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) No, Sir. It would not be desirable to intersperse communications on many grave matters of policy with inquiries of this character. The Secretary of State harbours no doubts of Lord Selborne's personal loyalty to the head of the Government under which he is serving, and will take no course which might seem to imply such suspicions. I would advise the hon. Member to treat such language as that used by Colonel Davies with the same indifference with which I know that the Prime Minister regards it.

  Chinese and Kaffir Labour in Transvaal Mines.
  MR. L. HASLAM: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to the gradual diminution in the numbers of natives employed during recent months in the South African gold mines, whether there is any difference in the amount of daily wages paid for similar work to the native from the amount paid to the Chinaman; if so, what is the approximate amount paid to the native and to the Chinaman; and if the Chinese are practically compelled to buy what they require from stores under the control of the mine owners at prices fixed by them.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The information at the disposal of the Secretary of State does not enable him to make an exact comparison between the daily wages paid to the Chinaman and the Kaffir for all the different classes of work, but from the figures published at page 118 of Cd. 2819 it appears that the average monthly wages for 1905 were for the native £2 11s. 9d., for the Chinaman £1 17s. 7d., respectively. Some explanation of this difference is given at page 115 of Cd. 2819. In regard to the last part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to a statement printed at page 3 of Cd. 1986, according to which the prices at the stores on the mines were reasonable, and kept down by competition.

  Working Cost of South African Mines.
  MR. ROSE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any official information to explain
  68
  the reason why the mining costs of the leading West Australian mines employing only white labour have been reduced to, from 17s. to 25s. a ton including development, the lowest daily wage for unskilled abour being 10s. 6d., rising to 18s. 6d. for skilled men; and is he aware that the working cost of sixty-five of the principal mines in South Africa for December amounted to 22s. 7½d. per ton.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I am not in a position to confirm in detail from official statistics the figures as to Western Australian mining, given in the hon. Member's Question. I understand that the average working costs in Western Australia are in excess of 22s. 7½d. per ton, but I notice that the working costs of the Great Fingall Mine are 22s. 7d. for 1905. With regard to the Transvaal mines, it is stated in the Mines Department Report, published in Cd. 2819 (see p. 1671), that the costs of the Rand Mines, Limited, and their working subsidiary companies, for the six months I ended 30th June 1905, were 22s. 8d. It must be remembered, however, that the value of the Witwatersrand mines arises less from the richness of the ore than from the extent and regularity of the reef. The average ore value per ton is 70s. in Western Australia, and about 36s. in the Transvaal, and the conditions governing working expenses differ widely in the two Colonies, and it will, there-fore, be realised that it is difficult to draw from Western Australian experience deductions which can safely be applied to the Transvaal.

  Transvaal—Disenfranchisement for Rebellion.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to secure that, under any constitution which may be granted to the Transvaal or Orange River Colonies none of those sentenced for rebellion to a term of disfranchisement shall be enfranchised before the expiry of such term.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) His Majesty's Government is not at present

  69
  in a position to give information as to the details of these Constitutions.

  Prosecution of Mr. Pless—Reasons for Action of Secretary of State.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the considerations which led the Secretary of State for the Colonies on receipt of the Earl of Selborne's dispatch of the 20th November 1905, to telegraph, on the 23rd December 1905, urging the Earl of Selborne to obtain information on which to prosecute some person in connection with the proceedings brought into question by Mr. Boland's allegations, though he had received no affidavit in support of the prosecution, but to delay till 15th February 1906 any recommendation to prosecute Mr. Pless, whose cruelty was sworn to by affidavit contained under cover of the same despatch from the Earl of Selborne of the 20th November 1905.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The consideration which caused the Secretary of State to telegraph on 23rd December was the same which caused Mr. Lyttelton to communicate with Lord Selborne earlier in the month in the same sense, as the hon. Member will see by reference to page 20 of Cd. 2819, viz., the desirability of prosecuting any one who might be shown to be guilty by the inquiry. The telegram did not urge Lord Selborne to obtain information, but inquired whether there was sufficient information, and was answered on 10th January by the statement that there was not sufficient evidence for prosecuting Mr. Pless or anyone else. New inquiries were made on the 15th February as to whether it would be practicable to prosecute Mr. Pless. These inquiries are not yet concluded; but as it has now been discovered that Mr. Pless is an American citizen and in China, they cannot be said so far to justify any sanguine expectation of his being brought to trial. Any delay which may have occurred is not due to a sinister motive, as the Question of the hon. Member seems to suggest.

  The Training of the Militia.
  MR.RATCLIFF: To ask the Secretary of
  70
  State for War what proportion of men serving in the Militia are estimated to be habitually unemployed during the winter.
  MR. RATCLIFF: To ask the Secretary of State for War if any increased cost is anticipated from his decision to substitute winter for summer training in the case of the twenty Militia battalions.
  LORD MORPETH: To ask the Secretary of State for War if the commanding officers of Militia battalions have reported to him that winter, as opposed to summer, training will conduce to the efficiency of their battalions; and if these Reports can be laid upon the Table.
  LORD MORPETH: To ask the Secretary of State for War which are the twenty battalions of Militia selected for winter training this year.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) In reply to these Questions will the hon. Members kindly refer to a full reply which I gave on this subject on Thursday 1st instant to Questions put by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University and other hon. Members,+ in which they will find such information as I am in a position to give to the points now raised. I may add that the sum of £35,000 has been taken in Estimates for 1906–7 for the lengthened recruit drill of the twenty Militia battalions.

  Medical Examination of Volunteers—Punishment for Non-compliance.
  MR. McCRAETo ask the Secretary of State for War whether the order, or regulation, in War Office Circular of 11th July, 1905, requesting General Officers Commanding to report results of a medical examination of Volunteers under their command as to fitness for active service abroad is still in force; if so, whether it is proposed to countermand the same; further, if he can say if any Volunteers were punished for non-compliance with the order; and what steps will be taken to deal with any such cases.
  † See (4) Debates, clii., 1288–90.

  71
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The circular referred to is not now in force. There were a few cases in which Volunteers were punished in connection with this circular. Some of these cases are now receiving the consideration of the Army Council.

  The Prime Minister and Colonel Davies.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a speech delivered by Colonel Davies, of the Imperial Light Horse, at Johannesburg on the 27th of January last, in which he referred to the First Lord of the Treasury and his supporters as that just and hon. right hon. Gentleman, they could put the name themselves, but it began with C. B., and his satellites, and attributed to them cowardice, scurrility, and falsehood; and whether he proposes to take any, and what, action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I am afraid that my hon. friend is mistaken in supposing that this matter comes within the purview of the Secretary of State for War.

  Closing of the Royal Canal.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any application has been made to his Department respecting the closing of that portion of the Royal Canal running from the main waterway to the Broadstone Station; whether, in view of the fact that the whole subject of canals and waterways in Ireland is about to be considered by a Commission which shall report to this House, he will delay giving sanction to closing any portion of the Royal Canal until an opportunity is afforded to take evidence and the opinions of those who are opposed to close up canals in the interest of railway companies.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Application has been made by the Midland Great Western Railway Company under Section 45 of The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, for a warrant of abandonment of the Broadstone branch of the Royal Canal, but, in view of the circumstances to which the hon. Member
  72
  refers, the consideration of the application will not for the present be proceeded with.

  Salaries of Assistant Clerks (New Class).
  MR. J. P. NANNETTI: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the recent memorial from Assistant Clerks (New Class), asking that their present salaries be levelled up to what they would have been were the new incremental rate in operation at the commencement of their services, is receiving the attention of the Treasury; and, in view of the fact that a similar concession was granted to the clerks in the Office of Woods a few years ago, and that there are at present Assistant Clerks (New Class) of from six to eleven years service, who are married and otherwise, and who are only in receipt of salaries ranging from £72 to £85 per annum, while new entrants after the 1st April, 1905, will receive salaries ranging from £80 to £105 per annum after similar length of service, a difference of from £8 to £20 per annum, he will take early steps to grant this concession to Assistant Clerks, as little additional expenditure would be involved in so doing.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The memorials in question are under consideration and I am not yet able to announce a decision. I may, however, mention that the case of the clerks in the Office of Woods referred to in he Question is not parallel, as was explained by my predecessors in answer to a Question on the 12th July last.†

  Overcrowded State of Graveyards in the Highlands.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will cause inquiry to be made into the overcrowded state of graveyards in the Highlands and Islands; and whether it is within the power of the Congested Districts Board to assist in their enlargement where it is desirable.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) It is not within the power of the Congested Districts Board to expend funds at their disposal in the way suggested, but if in
  See (4) Debates, cxlix., 384.

  73
  any special instances neglect of the statutory authority to do their duty in this respect is reported, suitable action will be taken.

  Auditing of Accounts of Parochial Public Charities.
  MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board what general powers exist, if any, for the auditing of the accounts of such public charities as may be controlled by parochial trustees, town, district, or parish councils; and whether an annual Return is required to be made of such charities, and in whom resides the power, if any, to compel such Returns being made.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) Expenditure relating to charities which are included in the accounts of any council whose accounts are subject to audit by a district auditor are audited by that auditor. Except to this extent, the matters referred to in the Question do not come within the province of the Local Government Board, but belong to that of the Charity Commissioners.

  Position of Veterinary Inspectors of the Board of Agriculture.
  MR. MCKILLOP: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if the veterinary inspectors of the animals division are under the direction of the assistant secretary, or are they on the staff and under the orders of the chief veterinary officer; if under the former is he prepared to place them under the latter.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The veterinary inspectors of the Board take their instructions from the chief veterinary officer with regard to their professional business, but for certain administrative purposes they work under the direction of the assistant secretary in charge of our animals division. No change is contemplated in these arrangements, which have been in operation for many years past, and have been attended with extremely satisfactory results.

  State of Towers at Clickaminn and Mousa, Shetland.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will have inquiry made into the state of the Pictish towers at Clickaminn and Mousa, Shetland, with a view to their preservation.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) The reply is in the affirmative. An officer of the Department is to inspect these towers in the spring or early summer.

  Home Office Dock and Wharf Regulations.
  MR. J. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the dock regulations issue by the Home Department in 1905 for the protection of life and limb are practically inoperative owing to the fact that the present staff of inspectors is not sufficient to cope with the extra work entailed; and whether it is his intention to take the necessary steps at an early date to appoint additional inspectors so that the regulations affecting docks and wharves may be efficiently carried out.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I cannot agree that the dock regulations are at present practically inoperative. A great deal of work has been done by the inspectors in enforcing the regulations. It is true that less progress has been made in enforcing compliance on board ship. This is to a large extent unavoidable, but I recognise that the regulations have added very much to the work of the staff in certain districts, and that an increase is necessary. I am now considering what arrangements should be made.

  Administration of the Aliens Act.
  MR. LEVY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that five aliens who arrived in London on 29th January, per steamship "Sperber," and who had tickets for America, Canada, or the Argentine, which had been purchased for them in England, were rejected and returned on that account, although each could show at least £5; and whether he will take steps to prevent such an administration of the

  75
  Aliens Act in similar circumstances in the future.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I can identify three such cases. Inquiry showed that in all of these the tickets had been taken by persons not connected with, and having no authority to act on behalf of or to control the aliens. In one of the two cases for America, the alien, who stated that he had had no intention of going there, would certainly have been rejected there for organic heart disease and returned to this country. In the other case, the alien said that he did not wish to go to America. In the case for the Argentine, the alien did not want to go, and there was no certainty that he would do so. In all three cases the aliens were undesirable within the meaning of the Act. In a fourth case the alien said he wished to go to America, but had no ticket. He suffered from diseases which would certainly have caused his rejection in America, and return to this country with the probability of becoming chargeable on the rates.

  Estimated Cost of Reorganising the Army on the North-West Indian Frontier.
  SIR H.COTTON: To ask the Secretary of State for India what is the amount of the sanctioned estimate of cost of the scheme of the Commander in Chief in India for reorganising and redistributing the Indian Army on the North-West frontier, and the amount it is proposed to spend annually on this object.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The total cost of the reorganisation scheme sanctioned by my predecessor cannot yet be given with accuracy, but it is estimated at 1,300 lakhs of rupees. It was proposed to spend annually about 300 lakhs on reorganisation, including, besides the Commander-in-Chief's scheme, certain other special measures, independently sanctioned, which will cost in all about 300 lakhs. The matter is under further consideration.

  Falsification of Accounts of late Staff Officer Deigan, Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. J. P. NANNETTI: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland with reference
  76
  to allege falsifications in the accounts of a deceased staff officer named Deigan in the Royal Irish Constabulary Office, Dublin Castle, (1) what are the dates on which the alleged falsifications, a shown in bank book or books, took place; (2) what are the periods within which the alleged falsifications occurred; (3) how many times during the period covered by the alleged falsifications was the bank book written up, and what was the last date, previous to deceased's death, on which the book was written up by the bank officials; (4) did any audits of the deceased's books take place within the said period, and, if so, during the progress of such audits was the bank book, alleged to be falsified, examined by the auditor, and why was the falsification not discovered; (5) is it the practice to audit at stated intervals the books of officers in deceased's position; (6) if so, why were the deceased's books not audited; (7) and who is the official or officials responsible for the neglect to audit such books.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) (1) The first falsification of the bank book was made immediately prior to 14th September, 1903, after the book had been written up in the bank. (2) Subsequent falsifications were made between that date and 11th December, 1903. (3) The bank book was not written up by the bank officials from 7th September, 1903, until immediately after Mr. Deigan's death on 6th January, 1904, though during this period false entries were made in the book, which entries purported to have been made by officials of the bank. (4) Two examinations of Mr. Deigan's books were made within the period mentioned at each of which the bank book containing the falsification was produced by him to the examiner. There was nothing at that time to indicate to the examiner that the entries were not genuine. (5), (6), (7) The books of the deceased were duly examined as I have stated and it cannot be admitted that there was any neglect in the matter.

  Religious Tests of Irish National School Teachers.
  SIR EDWARD CARSON: To ask the Chief Secretary to

  77
  the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland by whom the appointments of head school teachers in public elementary schools in Ireland are made, and whether any test as to the religion; of such teachers is applied.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Commissioners of National Education that the appointments of all teachers of ordinary national schools in Ireland are made by the local managers of the schools, subject to general conditions as to qualifications, etc., laid down by the Commissioners, a religious test not being one of these conditions.

  Teaching of the English Language in Transvaal and Orange River Elementary Schools.
  CAPTAIN HERVEY: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if there will be any clause in the constitution of the Transvaal or Orange River Colony to prevent the exclusion of the British language from the elementary schools.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The question of the treatment of the two languages is under consideration in connection with the new constitution. No advantage is likely to be gained by premature and piecemeal statement as to particular clauses.

  Proposed Introduction of Indian Labour into the Transvaal.
  MR. REES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the question of the introduction of Indian labour into the Transvaal, under indenture, for employment on railways, is still under consideration; whether in that case the Government of India maintains the demand it made in 1903 for improved treatment of Indian traders and others, as conditions upon the fulfilment of which its consent to such introduction of Indian coolies into the Transvaal would depend, or whether the conditions laid down in 1903 were in 1904 withdrawn.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The question of the introduction of Indian labour into the Transvaal may now be said to have lapsed. The conditions of
  78
  the Indian Government have never been withdrawn.

  Re-instatement of Men Discharged from Waltham Abbey Gunpowder Factory.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can hold out any hope that men discharged from the Royal Gunpowder Factory at Waltham Abbey during the past twelve months will be reinstated during the coming financial year.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) I am afraid I am not yet in a position to say whether the orders for the coming year will permit of the re-engagement of men who have been discharged from Waltham Abbey Factory during the past twelve months.

  Grants and Allowances to Officers of Cadet Battalions.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether officers of cadet battalions who hold certificates of proficiency and of having passed the Army examinations in tactics are, by the existing Volunteer regulations, deprived of the grants and allowances which officers of Volunteer battalions and units holding similar certificates earn for their corps, although all cadet officers are commissioned as officers in the Volunteer force; whether the examinations passed by officers of cadet battalions holding such certificates are identical with the examinations passed by officers in Volunteer battalions and units; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of amending the Volunteer regulations with the object of enabling cadet battalions to draw capitation grants for such of their officers as are in possession of proficiency and other certificates for which capitation grants are authorised in respect of officers serving in Volunteer battalions or units.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) It has been a settled policy that cadet battalions shall not involve the State in any expense beyond the provision of arms and ammunition, and the grant of pay and allowances to officers attending courses of instruction. I do not think that any sufficient reasons are now

  79
  brought forward to justify any departure from that policy.

  Military Manœeuvres Act—Draft Order in Council.
  SIR EDWARD CARSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to proceed with the draft Order in Council presented to Parliament under the Military Manœuvres Act, 1897, in the form in which the draft Order now stands; and, if so, when the address under the said Act will be moved.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) It is intended to proceed with this draft Order in Council in its present form, and the Address will be moved as soon as the Order has lain before each House of Parliament for thirty days on which that House is sitting, that is, about the second week in May. The manœuvres will be held in August for the period of that month, as I have already promised a deputation from the county. This month has been selected in order that the views put forward to me by the deputation might be met.

  Winter Training of Militia Battalions.
  MR. RAWLINSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will say during which months the winter training of the twenty Militia battalions is to take place.
  (Answered, by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) As I stated in my reply to the hon. and learned Member on Thursday last, it is optional for recruits to enlist for this six months training at any time convenient to themselves during the year.

  Fines and Forfeitures at Army Clothing Factory, Pimlico.
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: To ask the Secretary of S ate for War whether, in a Government store in Pimlico, fines are or recently were imposed and deducted from wages; and, if so, whether it is intended to make in this case, and in any other cases where a like practice may prevail in establishment controlled by the War Office, the same reform as is contemplated in the case of deductions from wages of Chinese labourers in Transvaal mines.
  80
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The right hon. and learned Member is presumably referring to the Army Clothing Department at Pimlico, and to the system of forfeiture of pay for irregularity in attendance. If an employee can prove to the satisfaction of an officer that his lateness was due to some unavoidable cause no deduction is made from his pay. It is not proposed to make any alteration in this system.

  Proposed Ministry of Commerce
  MR. FIELD: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will consider the expediency of appointing a Minister of Commerce in conjunction with a consultative committee.
  (Answered by Sir Henry Campbell-Banner man.) I am well aware of the importance of this subject, but I am afraid that there is no prospect of its, being dealt with this session.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Admiralty Contracts—Use of Foreign Material.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will enumerate the various articles supplied by contractors for the use of the Navy which are required to be of British manufacture or material.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): The list of articles is too long for enumeration, but no alteration has been made in the regulations which obtained under the late Board of Admiralty. No machinery is obtained from abroad with the exception of certain machines of special design which cannot be obtained from British sources, and all steel and other materials are required to be of British manufacture, except in the case of certain brands of. foreign steel better adapted to special methods of manufacture in particular cases. As regards other manufactured articles, tenders are invited only from the actual manufacturers, and no foreign firms are admitted to the Admiralty list

    81
    except for specialities exclusively manufactured abroad. In the case of contracts executed for the Works Department, the contractors are not bound to use British materials.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to let me have privately a list of the articles?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Certainly.

    The "Dreadnought" Trials.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the "Dreadnought's" trials are unlikely to be completed before the end of February, 1907; and, if so, whether the Admiralty will proceed with the commencement of the annual programme without such delay as would be involved if the designs are held over for the completion of the "Dreadnought" trials.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The "Dreadnought" trials will in all probability be carried out in October, and need not, therefore, be the cause of any delay.

    Rosyth Castle.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHERGRAYI beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if his Department proposes to make any use of the ruined castle of Rosyth.
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. LAMBERT,): The question of utilising the ruined castle at Rosyth is under the consideration of the Board of Admiralty. In meantime it has been made weatherproof. Any suggestion which the hon. Member can offer as to its future use will be carefully considered.

    Keyham Harbour Works.
    MR. H. H. MARKS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether contractors for harbour works are required to use British granite only; whether British granite only is to be used on the Keyham Harbour works; and whether he will give instructions that all contracts over which the Admiralty has, or may hereafter have, control shall stipulate that only British granite shall be used on such works.
    MR. LAMBERT: The Answer to the three parts of the hon. Member's Question is in the negative; with the qualification that the Board of Admiralty cannot fetter their future action.

    Indian Government and the Rhodesia Mines.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if the Indian Government refused to consider a proposal for the introduction of Indian miners into Rhodesia, giving as one of its reasons that it did not feel certain that they would be properly treated there; and if the Indian Government refused to allow Indian subjects of the King to enter into engagements to work in the Transvaal mines under the conditions of the Chinese Labour Ordinance.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. JOHN MORLEY,): The objection of the Government of India to allowing labourers to be recruited in India for labour (not specially labour in mines) in Rhodesia turned not upon the terms of the contract for coolie labour, but more generally upon the disabilities under which other British Indian subjects laboured, and in particular upon the imposition of a literary test on immigrants, excluding those acquainted only with an Asiatic language. As regards the second paragraph of the Question, I beg to refer my hon. friend to the Answer given by me on the 28th February.†
    MR. SCHWANN: Is it not the fact that two years ago the then Secretary of State for the Colonies stated that the application of the provisions of the Ordinance with regard to Chinese labour to British Indian subjects would probably be objected to?
    MR. JOHN MORLEYasked for notice of the Question.

    Spirituous Liquor Manufactures in India.
    MR. LAIDLAW: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will give an assurance that the experts now engaged in the Government of India's investigation into spirituous liquors manufactured in India
    †(See 4) Debates, clii., 1126.

    83
    shall be allowed to complete their work without being restricted by a time limit.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: When the investigation was undertaken in 1904 it was thought that it could be completed within a period of nine months. There is reason to believe that it may be completed very speedily. The Government must have full discretion allowed to them, and I fear I can give no assurance.

    Indian Army Organisation.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: With the permission of the House, I should like to make a short statement with reference to Papers which I laid before the House last Monday concerning Army administration in India. I have received a telegram, which I hope the House will allow me to read, as it will conclude the matter raised in those Papers. I received it on Saturday afternoon from Lord Minto—"Military Administration.—I will at once carry out procedure on the lines indicated. Lord Kitchener asks me to say that the Headquarters Staff will do their best to ensure the successful working of the new organisation, and I am confident of the thorough support of my Council."

    Alleged Outrage on a British Subject in Manchuria.
    SIR W. EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the case of Mr. J. E. Geddes, a British subject, who is alleged to have been imprisoned and maltreated by the Russian military and civil authorities in Manchuria, has been brought to his notice; whether any representations and claims for compensation have been made to the Russian Government; and, if so, whether any reply has been received.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RUNCIMAN,For Sir E. Grey): The case of Mr. Geddes has been brought to the notice of His Majesty's Government and they are in communication with the Russian Government on the subject, who are making inquiries from their own officers concerned as to the facts. There is reason to believe that until recently the person in question spelt his name
    84
    as Guedes and that he is of Portuguese extraction.
    SIR W. EVANS-GORDON: Is there any evidence to show that Mr. Geddes is not a British subject?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I understand that he is a British subject now.

    Case of ex-Police Constable Rolls.
    MR. P. W. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to the case of William James Rolls, now serving a sentence of five years penal servitude for perjury committed as a policeman; whether his attention has been called to the new facts in reference to this case, which were not known to the Court when Rolls was brought in guilty by the jury; and whether he is prepared to make any statement on the matter.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (MR. GLADSTONE,): I have myself given the closest attention to the case referred to in the hon. Member's Question, and have had careful inquiries made with regard to the alleged new facts. It is with great regret that I have arrived at the conclusion that the conviction was right and that no ground exists on which I could depart from my predecessor's decision and recommend to His Majesty any interference with the sentence. I have not, in arriving at this decision, relied solely on my own judgment and that of my advisers, but I took the exceptional step of asking the highest judicial authority concerned in the administration of the criminal law, the Lord Chief Justice, to assist me. This he kindly consented to do, and the whole of the papers in this case, including all the appeals made to the Homo Office and the Articles which recently appeared in the Daily News, were placed in his hands. After fully examining them he has informed me that it is his clear opinion that the conviction was right, and that there is no possible ground for Home Office interference.
    MR. P. W. WILSON: I shall put another Question on this.

    Women Factory Inspectors in Ireland.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the proposed increase of women factory inspectors, he will consider the advisability of appointing one for Ireland.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The claims of Ireland will be carefully considered in connection with any arrangements that may be made for strengthening the women inspectors' branch, but I may remind the hon. Member that an additional lady inspector was appointed last year for inspection in Ireland, and is required to reside there during two-thirds of each year. This is in addition to visits which are paid by other members of the branch, the staff of which generally is not attached to particular districts, but is available for inspection throughout the country.

    Shop Assistants—Hours of Employment.
    MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government has considered the length of the hours of employment of shop assistants, and will introduce legislation reducing those hours to a limit permitted to factories Land workshops.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I fear there is no doubt that unduly long hours are worked by the assistants in many shops. But as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the hours of adult male labour are not regulated in factories and workshops, and to reduce the hours of all shop assistants to the limits now fixed for women and young persons in factories and workshops (a maximum of sixty-eight hours per week, including meal-times) would be a very strong measure and might result in considerable public inconvenience. The hours for the employment of young persons (i.e., those under eighteen) in shops are already limited, by the Acts of 1892 and 1895, to seventy-four per week (including meal times). Indirectly, too, shop assistants may be expected to derive some benefit from closing orders made under the Shop Hours Act, 1905. I fear I cannot make any statement as to legislation at the present time.

    Seats for Female Shop Assistants.
    MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received any complaints that employers discharge female assistants using the seats provided in accordance with the seats for Shop Assistants Act, 1899; and, if so, whether the Government is prepared to introduced legislation rendering it an offence for female assistants to be dismissed for so doing.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The Shop Seats Act is not administered by the Home Office. Complaints have been made to the local authorities that difficulties have been placed in the way of the use of the seats by the shop assistants. I am not aware how far these complaints are justified. Even if an Act in the terms proposed by the hon. Member were passed, the difficulty of proving the offence under it would, I am advised, be so great as to render it but of little practical advantage.
    MR. CROOKS: Will the Government repeal the Act altogether, so that it may not be used as an excuse for discharging people?
    MR. GLADSTONE: It is really not in my Department. I am not responsible for the administration of the Act, but I will certainly look closely into the whole subject.

    Case of Isaak Ilischewitz.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the case of a Russian named Isaak Ilischewitz, accused of having committed an assault in the East End of London, has been referred to him by the judge before whom the accused was tried to obtain evidence from the Russian Government as to the man's character; and whether, in taking such evidence, he will consult with such responsible countrymen of the accused living in London as may be able to throw light on his antecedents.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The only communication I have received from the court in this case is the certificate under the Aliens Act, recommending expulsion at the expiration of the six

    87
    months sentence, but I have received a petition on the man's behalf, and I am making inquiry into the case. The hon. Member may rest assured that due consideration will be given to all representations on the prisoner's behalf, before any order is made for his expulsion from this country.

    Criminal Investigation Department.
    MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any member of the Criminal Investigation Department, or prison official, or any person controlled by the Home Office, has a general authority to promise prisoners, undergoing sentence, any remission of their punishment if they will give in formation tending to bring other persons to justice; and, if no such general authority exists, whether a particular authority is given in special instances, and by whom, and to whom, and under what circumstances.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The answer to both Questions is in the negative. No person has any general authority from the Home Office to promise remission of punishment as a reward for giving information tending to bring other persons to justice, and though it is possible that in some particular case authority may have been given to hold out hope of some remission, no recent case of the sort is known. I may say, however, that in some cases a judge in passing sentence has held out hope to a prisoner that he would recommend its reduction if he gave information in the interests of justice.

    Miscarriage of Justice at Manchester.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the miscarriage of justice in the case of John Joyce, New Butler Street, Oldham Road, Manchester, who underwent two months' imprisonment with hard labour for the alleged theft of some clothes, although a man who was convicted of the same offence at the same time admitted his own guilt, and stated that Joyce had had nothing to do with it; whether he is aware that Joyce's wife and three children suffered distress and his home was broken up during his incarceration; and whether, seeing that he
    88
    has received a free pardon, but has been awarded only £25 from the Treasury as compensation for his physical and mental suffering endured, he can make further compensation to him.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The case is well known to the Home Office, and the facts are accurately stated in the first part of the question; but I must add that the prisoner did not petition the Secretary of State during his sentence, and that the first my predecessor heard of the case was in an application, made some months after his release. The facts were then investigated, a free pardon was granted, and, as the case appeared to be one of considerable hardship, the Treasury agreed to grant a compassionate gratuity of £25. As Joyce was earning only about 14s. a week at the time of his conviction, and as neither Treasury nor Home Office was in any way concerned in the case, I do not think I should be justified in asking the Treasury to increase the grant.

    Aliens Act—Case of Alexander Ouix.
    MR. J. R. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has made further inquiries regarding the steps taken by the immigration officer at Harwich in the case of Alexander Ouix to carry out the purpose of the Aliens Act as regards political refugees; whether any notice was taken of the statement of the deported refugee's companion that Ouix had fled from Russia for a political crime, and whether they were informed of an immigration board to which an appeal could be made; whether an interpreter was employed who could only speak in English and German; and whether he has satisfied himself that the immigration officer at Harwich carried out his duties in a satisfactory way.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have made further inquiry into the case in question. It is quite clear that the immigration officer did all he could to convey to Ouix the fact that he could appeal. Further, he endeavoured to induce the master of the ship to exercise his right to appeal on behalf of Ouix, but without success. But it is not clear that Ouix understood that he had a right of appeal. I have given instructions that immigration officers should be supplied with copies of the

    89
    notice stating the right of immigrants to appeal printed in all the languages at all likely to be used. I am also considering whether it is possible to establish advisory committees who could assist immigration boards to give full effect to the intention of Parliament as expressed in Section 1, Sub-section (3), of the Aliens Act.

    Administration of Aliens Act in London.
    MR. LEIF JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the case of six political refugees, named Yussa Friedman, Itzig Darchewsky, Rosa Darchewsky, Meyer Ternapolsky, David Cooperberg, and Moses Licht, who arrived in London on 24th February, and were refused permission to land by the Immigration Board; whether he can state on what grounds these immigrants were rejected; and what steps he proposes to take to safeguard the right of asylum for the victims of religious and political persecution.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am informed that in all these cases the ground for rejection was that the immigrants showed no reasonable prospect of maintaining himself or being maintained decently, with additional reason of senility in the ease of Cooperberg. As regards the suggestion that these persons were the victims of persecution, it is right to point out that Friedman and Licht said that they had left wives and children in Russia; and in no case was any credible story of persecution or danger told to the Board; in some cases no such suggestion was even made. In no case did the immigrants represent to the Immigration Officer that he was a refugee, nor did the notice of appeal say so, not even in the case of Ternapolsky, who had in his possession letters from England, telling him to say that he had been hiding in a cellar without food or water, had been in great danger, and had had neighbours tilled before his eyes; and on no account to say that the £5 which he bad with him was not his own.

    Notices of Accounts on Railways.
    MR. BELL: On behalf of the hon. Member for Stockport I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he intends to bring in a Bill to
    90
    enact that the same provisions shall apply in regard to railways for notices of accidents as are now proposed in the case of mines, quarries, factories and workshops.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): If the proposals referred to as to notices of accidents in mines, factories, etc., are adopted by Parliament, a corresponding change can be made in the definition of a reportable accident, so far as accidents on railways are concerned, by an order under the Regulation of Railways Act, 1871, and legislation for the purpose will therefore not be necessary.

    London and North Western Railway—Shunting Engines.
    MR. BELL: On behalf of the hon. Member for Stockport, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the erection and use of locomotive engines for the purposes of shunting on the London and North Western Railway, which are inimical to the health and safety of the employees on that railway; whether he has power under the Railway (Prevention of Accidents) Act to inquire into, inspect, or prohibit the use of such locomotives until the objectionable features in their construction have been removed.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: If the hon. Member will be good enough to furnish me with particulars of the shunting engines to which he refers, and of the nature of the objectionable features which they possess, I shall be prepared to consider whether the Board of Trade could take any action with regard thereto.

    Railway Junction Time Tables.
    MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I beg to ask the President Of the Board of Trade if he has any power to compel railway companies whose systems meet at a common junction to so time their trains as to secure a minimum of waiting for passengers travelling by the two systems; and, if so, under what circumstances such a power, if any, may be exercised; and, if no such power exists, whether he will consider the advisability of promoting legislation for the acquisition of such powers.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: By the Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1854 (Section 2) Railway Companies are placed under an obligation to forward traffic (including passengers) arriving from other companies lines without any unreasonable delay. Complaints under this enactment are heard and determined by the Railway and Canal Commissioners. If, however, any specific case of the nature referred to by my hon. friend is brought to my notice, the Board of Trade will be glad to consider whether the circumstances would justify them in endeavouring by communication with the Railway Companies concerned to bring about a satisfactory settlement.

    Colonial Import Duties on British Manufactures.
    MR. ESSEX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will have prepared and issued a report showing the import duties levied on British manufactures by the various self-governing and other Colonies and dependencies of the Empire; such return to be similar in form to Cd. 2797.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: A return of the nature referred to is issued annually by the Board of Trade. The last return is dated October, 1905, and bears the number Cd. 2627.

    Taff Vale Railway Company.
    MR. BELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will take early steps, under the Railways Employment (Prevention of Accidents) Act, 1900, to compel the Taff Vale Railway Company to provide brake vans for the guards working goods and mineral trains over the Penarth and Roath branches of that system, so as to prevent the men from the dangers of having to ride on the buffers and on top of coal and other vehicles.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Railway and Canal Commission has decided, as the hon. Member is aware, that the Taff Vale Railway Company is entitled to some exemption on the sections of line in question from the rule requiring the provision of brake vans on trains. The Board accordingly prepared a rule providing for an exemption from the rule, so far as empty trains returning from the
    92
    docks are concerned, but the railway company have objected that this exemption is not enough, and the matter will probably have to go before the court again. No time will be lost in disposing of the matter.

    The Postal Inquiry—Engineering Junior Clerks Association.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has received any petition or communication from the Junior Clerks Association of the post office engineering branch in respect to an improvement in the conditions of employment; and whether the Select Committee about to be appointed by the postal authorities will inquire into the claims of this body of public servants.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): The reference to the Select Committee does not include enquiry into the pay of the clerical force. The petition of the Junior Clerks Association is under consideration.

    Underground Cable to Aberdeen.
    MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General when he expects to be able to extend to Aberdeen the underground cable now laid between London and Glasgow.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The laying of the underground cable, owing to financial considerations, can only be done gradually. The Aberdeen extension cannot yet, I fear, be taken in hand.

    Motor Cars—Local Speed Regulation.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will issue a circular to the local authorities to the effect that the Local Government Board will consider impartially any application from local authorities to limit the speed of motor cars within their respective districts.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I cannot undertake to issue a circular of the kind suggested, but my hon. friend may rest assured that any applications which local authorities may make to the Local Government

    93
    Board under the Motor Car Act will be impartially considered.

    Local Taxation Grants in Aid.
    LORD HELMSLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, pending fresh legislation on the subject, he will bring in a Bill to amend the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, so that the amount payable by annual grant to the local taxation account for distribution among each spending authority may be based upon the rates levied in each current year, instead of being based, as at present, on the rates levied in 1896.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: No, Sir, I could not undertake to bring in a Bill for the purpose suggested.

    Inspection of Cowsheds and Dairies.
    MR. LEIF JONES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can see his way to modify the model bye-laws of the Local Government Board for the inspection of dairies and cowsheds, so as to provide that when the medical officer of health or inspector of nuisances is inspecting cattle he shall De accompanied by a properly qualified veterinary surgeon, whose duty it shall be to examine the animals and report thereon.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: There is nothing in the Model Regulations to prevent a Local Authority from employing a veterinary surgeon as an officer to inspect cattle in dairies if they wish to do so. But it does not seem to me to be either necessary or desirable to require the medical officer of health or inspector of nuisances when visiting a dairy to be always accompanied by a veterinary surgeon.

    The Redistribution Committee.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will give the names of the members of the recent Redistribution Committee, with their official positions, if any, and the amounts paid to them respectively in respect of their services upon such Committee.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: The members of the Committee were Colonel Johnston,
    94
    C.B., R.E., late Director General fo the Ordnance Survey Department; Mr. Alexander Glen, K.C, and Mr. Howel Thomas, one of the principal clerks of the Local Government Board. The amounts paid to them as remuneration in respect of their services were—Colonel Johnston, £341 5s.; Mr. Glen, £320 5s.; Mr. Howel Thomas, £200.
    MR. CROOKS: May I ask whether there are any more "soft jobs" like that going?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: In the absence of evidence from the hon. Member that these were "soft jobs," he has no right to assume that those men did not give value for the money paid to them.
    MR. BOTTOMELY: The House, then, was wrongly informed the other day, when it was told that no officials of the Local Government Board had received any of the £1,200 voted for the Committee.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: It was suggested in the Question put to me that certain moneys included in the £1,200 had been improperly received for services not wholly rendered. I objected to that, and I have now given the actual amounts paid for services which, I am informed, were not only ably, but energetically rendered.
    MR. J. WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an opportunity of judging whether this money was earned by publishing the Report of these gentlemen?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I have already promised that this Report will be laid upon the Table on a very early date, probably to-morrow.

    Education Grant—Method of Payment.
    MR. BEAUCHAMP: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether it is proposed to discontinue the payment of the annual grant to elementary schools by quarterly instalments; whether any representations have been made by local education authorities against the proposal; and, if so, whether he will

    95
    consider the desirability of continuing the arrangement at present in force.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL,): I must refer the hon. Member to my reply on Thursday, February 22nd, to a similar Question put to me by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent. I have as yet, nothing to add to that reply.

    Board of Agriculture—Inspectors in the Animals Division.
    MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will state how many lay inspectors there are in the animals division, and if he will grant a Return showing the previous occupation or profession and the salary given in each case respectively, and whether they are all at fixed salaries, and how many are entitled to a pension; and further, will the President state how many veterinary surgeons are employed as temporary inspectors, and furnish a Return of the salary in each case, whether they are at fixed salaries or have prospects of an increase, and if entitled to a pension.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The inspecting staff of the animals division, as recently resettled, will consist of forty-seven nonprofessional inspectors and twenty-three veterinary inspectors of various grades. Of these eleven non-professional and eleven veterinary inspectors will be pensionable. Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to confer personally with him on the other points to which he refers in his Question.

    Smoking Accommodation in Parliament Buildings.
    MR. SOAMES,I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the congested state of the writing and smoking rooms in the House; and whether he can see his way to relieving that congestion, either by carrying out the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Accommodation of the House to provide three new rooms on the Terrace front in the basement, or in any other manner.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,): On this subject I am a poacher turned gamekeeper, but with all the old poaching instincts still remaining. There was a general desire in the last—as in this—Parliament that smoking should be permitted in one of the Libraries. You Mr. Speaker, and your predecessor, hesitated to give the necessary permission without a definite expression of opinion by a vote of the House. This it has previously been impossible to obtain except by the clumsy, and as I now think undesirable method, of reducing the salary of the First Commissioner of Works. To avoid such an unfortunate vehicle of expression I have invented a method by which a plebiscite of the House may be taken. I propose to insert in the Office of Works Vote a sum of £120 for increased smoking accommodation. If this is allowed to stand I shall take it that the House wishes permission for smoking in one of the Libraries: if Members reject the Vote—which they are at liberty to do, as it will be left an open question—the smoking accommodation will remain as it is at present. The desire of the House, as I understand it, is for a silent room in which Members may be allowed to smoke whilst they are reading or writing.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would bear in mind the act that there were several rooms belonging to the House of Lords quite near which were never used, and would do very well for smoking rooms.
    MR. HARCOURT: I have considered that question, but I have no control over the House of Lords.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: There would be no difficulty at all if we approached the Lords politely.
    MR. HARCOURT: I will convey the wishes of the hon. Member as politely as possible.

    Crofters' Grievances.
    MR. JOHN DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been directed to the agitation among the crofters and cottars in South Uist and Barra; and if he

    97
    proposes to introduce legislation at an early day to remedy the grievances complained of.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The proceedings referred to are under my observation. As the hon. Member knows, the Government have announced their intention of amending and extending the Crofters' Act with a view to ameliorating the general condition of the crofter population.
    MR. JOHN DEWARasked whether the Congested Districts Board have made any progress in regard to the settlement of crofters and cottars on lands in South Uist.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The negotiations have been unexpectedly difficult and protracted, but an agreement has now been adjusted for the creation of new holdings on the farms of Kilbride and Glendale. The farm of Gerinish, which the proprietrix is willing to deal with in a similar way, is not out of lease until Whitsunday, 1907.
    MR. WEIR: Are we to understand that a Bill to amend the Crofters Act will be brought in at an early date?
    MR. SINCLAIR: I can give no pledge as to the date.

    Argyll and Wigtown Fisheries.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether ho proposes to take any steps, by legislation or otherwise, to remove the disability attaching to English trawlers, who are prevented from fishing inside a line drawn from Corsewall Point, in the county of Wigtown, to the Mull of Cantyre, in the County of Argyll, and in other bays on the Scotch coast, while foreign trawlers are free to do so.
    MR. SINCLAIR: It is not proposed at present to consider any action in reference to trawling within these waters, as an appeal which has a bearing upon this subject is now pending in the High Court of Justiciary.

    Loch Fyne Fisheries.
    MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: I beg to ask the Secretary
    98
    for Scotland whether he is aware of the suffering and loss endured by the fishermen of Loch Fyne in consequence of the failure of the herring fishing; whether he knows that this is believed to be due to the want of any close time for herrings; and whether, having in view that there is no representative on the Scottish Fishery Board representing the interests of the West Coast, he will instruct the officials of that Board to prosecute inquiry, with the view of setting up a close time for herrings.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The failure of the herring fishing in Loch Fyne during last year, and the loss which it has entailed on the fishermen are greatly deplored by the Government. The subject is under the observation of the Fishery Board. It is not clear that such failure is due to the want of a close time. The movements of herrings are well known to be erratic. And the unproductiveness of last year's fishing is believed to represent one of those periods of scarcity which have recurred at intervals off the Scottish Coast, and which would be unaffected by the establishment of a close time. An inquiry is at present being made by the Board's Scientific Department into the migration, etc., of herrings in the Clyde area, the results of which will be made known in due course. It is not the case, as stated in the Question, that there is no representative of the West Coast on the Fishery Board.
    MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: Does the right hon. Gentleman know who is the representative of Rothesay on the Fishery Board, and is he aware what are his qualifications for the post?
    MR. SINCLAIR: Yes, Sir.

    Firth of Clyde Herring Fishery.
    MR. BEALE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in the event of any inquiry being directed into the question of a close time for herrings in the Firth of Clyde, he will direct that the question of the suffering and loss which a close time would inflict on the fishermen of Girvan, Ballantrae, and the Ayrshire coast shall be considered; and that the effects of trawling and of trammel net fishing shall be separately considered.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The subject is under the observation of the Fishery Board, who will, no doubt, bear in mind the points mentioned by my hon. friend.

    Cork Spring Assizes.
    MR. A. ROCHE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the opening of the Cork Spring Assizes has been fixed for St. Patrick's Day; whether a representation has been received by the Irish Government from the Cork Corporation, suggesting that the opening of the assizes should be postponed to Monday, 19th March; and, seeing that St. Patrick's Day is a Government as well as a national holiday, and that the general convenience and the wishes of the public would be consulted by acceding to the suggestion of the Cork Corporation, will the authorities consider the desirability of fixing the opening day for the 19th March.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): I am informed that His Majesty's Judges of Assize have postponed the opening of Cork Assizes till 19th March, and that public notice to that effect has been issued since the hon. Member gave notice of this Question.

    Case of Tristram Curry, Late of the Recorder's Court.
    MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the circumstances attending the absconding of Tristram Curry, late Registar of the Recorder for the East Riding of Cork, after embezzling trust funds to a considerable amount, lodged with him as officer of the Recorder's Court by various solicitors; will he say whether the defalcations were known in November, and that it was only on the 12th December a warrant was issued for Curry's arrest, he having been seen at his office in the court house in the meantime; what steps, if any, did the Recorder take for the safe custody of trust moneys lodged with his Registrar; whether, failing any action on his part for the protection of suitors to his Court, he will be asked to make good the loss caused by the dishonesty of his officer, or what other measures will be taken to indemnify the
    100
    clients whose trust funds have been misappropriated, without any contributory negligence on their own part; and what will be done to guard against the recurrence of similar misappropriation in the Recorder's Court for the future.
    MR. CHERRY: The Answer to the first paragraph of the Question is in the affirmative. I am informed by the Recorder of Cork that the first complaint in regard to Mr. Curry was received by him on 28th November last. The Recorder at once called on Mr. Curry for an explanation, which Mr. Curry gave on the 30th November, but which, upon inquiry, was found to be not well founded. On the following day the Recorder sent a report of the matter to the Lord Chancellor. On Saturday, 2nd December, the Clerk of the Crown and Peace forwarded to the authorities in Dublin a report as to Mr. Curry's alleged defalcations, amounting to some £1,500. This report was received on Monday, the 4th December, and the matter was at once referred to the local Crown Solicitor for investigation and report, and the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown was taken. The Report of the Crown Solicitor was received on the 11th of December, and the warrant for Curry's arrest was issued next day. The investment of trust monies in court in the county courts is regulated by Rules of Court, and if those rules were followed, or their observance enforced, it is difficult to say how the loss could have occurred. Proceedings are pending against the sureties of Mr. Curry with a view to securing the indemnification of the suitors against the losses occasioned by his defalcations. Pending such proceedings and the ascertainment of liability of all persons concerned, it would not be possible, and would not be desirable to make any hypothetical statement in reference to the matters mentioned in the Question. The Lord Chancellor and the Rules Committee of County Court Judges have considered the existing Rules of Court and how far they are sufficient to prevent the occurrence of any frauds as distinguished from the non-observance by suitors or solicitors of the rules themselves, and rules are now in preparation which, it is hoped, will prove effectual to this end. The Lord Chancellor has suggested that there should be a public audit of the accounts

    101
    in each County Court, and that application should be made to the Treasury to sanction the necessary expenses connected therewith.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Who is responsible for the non-enforcement of the rules?
    MR. CHERRY: I believe the solicitors who had the investment of the monies in their hands.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman direct a public inquiry into the circumstances, as this is a matter of public interest?
    MR. CHERRY: I do not think that can be done until after the proceedings against the sureties.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many suitors have been reduced to absolute destitution in consequence of this?
    MR. CHERRY: No effort will be spared on behalf of the Government to recover the money for indemnifying the suitors, if it can be done.

    Irish Cattle Exports.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if any Returns are available showing the number of cattle exported from Ireland to Great Britain during each of the past five years; and, if so, can he state the figures.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this Question. The Report of Proceedings under the Diseases of Animals Acts—which forms the subject of Parliamentary Paper No. 2609 of last year—contains the figures in question from 1878 to 1904, inclusive. The total number of cattle exported to Great Britain last year was 749,131.

    Hickman Estate, West Clare.
    MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland for information in reference to the sale of the Hickman estate at Rehy, near Carrigaholt, in West Clare, on
    102
    16th August, 1905, when Mr. Charles McDonnell, the agent of Major Hickman, gave a promise in writing that Major Hickman would offer the farm at Rehy, which is in his own, Major Hickman's, hands for purchase to the Estates Commissioners in order to have it divided among the poor tenants on the estate; whether he is aware that on those conditions the tenants agreed to the terms of purchase, the game rights included, and will ho say whether Major Hickman or his agent has done anything to carry out his promise to the tenants during the past six months; whether it was with Major Hickman's knowledge and consent that the prosecution was brought against Pat Cahill, who is one of his tenants; and whether, seeing that Mr. Burton of Carrigaholt had no right to prosecute Cahill for shooting on the lands, he will make further inquiries into this case.
    MR. BRYCE: The originating application in respect of this estate includes 305 acres of land in the vendor's occupation at Rehy East, which he proposes to sell to the Land Commission for distribution among the tenants of small holdings who are purchasing the remainder of the estate. The Estates Commissioners have no information whether this land includes the farm for killing rabbits upon which Cahill was convicted. The originating application states that the sporting rights to which the vendor is entitled shall be vested in the tenants subject to any rights reserved by deed to the representatives of Mr. H. I. Burton. I have already informed the hon. Member that Cahill was convicted for killing rabbits, not on his own farm, but on a farm in the landlord's possession. The prosecution was at the joint suit of Major Hickman and Mr. C. V. Burton.

    Galway Police Charges.
    MR JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the constabulary authorities have made a demand for £566 on the Galway County Council, being the alleged cost of extra police, but which the Council decline to pay; and whether, in view of the peaceable condition of the county, he can state on what ground the constabulary authorities base this demand for the cost of police in excess of the

    103
    normal number to which the county is entitled.
    MR. BRYCE: A claim for £610 has been made against the County Council of Galway in respect of extra police for the half year which ended on 30th September, 1905, and the County Council have, so far, declined to meet the claim. I need hardly say that the matter occurred before His Majesty's present Government came into office; but I am informed that the services of the extra force were necessary for the preservation of the peace in connection with the agitation against the grazing system in the country. No extra police above the established force are now serving in the county.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: In view of the numerous cases of intimidation, boycotting, firing into houses, etc., in County Galway, is it correct to speak of the peaceable condition of the county?
    Mr. BRYCE: It is not the case that such offences are very numerous. Compared with previous periods they are comparatively rare.
    MR. CONOR O'KELLY: Is it not the fact that the cost of the extra police now being charged against Galway has not already been voted for the maintenance of the very same men in other counties? What has become of the money?
    MR. BRYCEasked for notice.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To what periods of history docs the Chief Secretary refer in his Answer to me?
    MR. BRYCE: Within the last twenty-five or thirty years.
    MR. CONOR O'KELLY: Has the number of police kept at any time within the county in the last year exceeded the total to which the county was declared entitled at the last revision.
    MR. BRYCE: I must ask for notice of that Question also.

    Irish Land Commission—Distribution of Duties.
    MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-
    104
    Lieutenant of Ireland whether the function of allocating the districts in which the Legal and Lay Assistant Commissioners of the Irish Land Commission shall act has been performed or is now performed by one or more of the Chief Commissioners; if so, by which of them; and whether the same Commissioner or Commissioners determine which on the hearing of appeals to the Chief Commission, or as Inspectors under the Estates Commissioners.
    MR. BRYCE: The allocation of the several Assistant Commissioners to the special duties upon which they are engaged receives the consideration of all the members of the Land Commission. The duty of assigning the Assistant Commissioners engaged in fixing judicial rents to their particular districts devolves upon one of the Judicial Commissioners, who may for the time being be dealing with the matter. The list of Lay Assessors was framed by the Judicial Commissioners with the approval of the Lord-Lieutenant and the Treasury, in accordance with the provisions of the General Orders made under the Act of 1903. In land purchase cases, the Land Commission, or the Estates Commissioners, as the case may be, select the Inspectors for the duty of visiting and reporting on the holdings concerned.

    Irish Land Purchase—Collection of Interest and Instalments.
    MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many letters of application to tenant purchasers under the Irish Land Act, 1903, for the collection of interest on, or instalments of annuities, of their purchase money have been issued up to date by the solicitor of the Irish Land Commission; how many civil bills and writs of summons have been issued in respect of such interest and instalments; and whether the Estates Commissioners will decline to sanction advances for the purchase of holdings in cases in which the tenants submit to them evidence of the vendors having shortly prior to the signature of the purchase agreements brought pressure to bear on the tenants to compel them to pay arrears of rent, other than the current year's rent, which the vendors

    105
    had not sought to collect by means of legal proceedings until the negotiations for a sale to their tenants had begun.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners are unable to reply to the first inquiry, as no record of the number of circulars issued is kept. On the 1st May, 1905, which is the last gale day in respect of which legal proceedings have been taken, there were about 53,000 payers of interest under the Act of 1896, and of interest or rent under the Act of 1903, all of whom paid on application with the exception of 1,155, against whom writs or civil bills were issued. Eight hundred and fifty of these paid before the cases came before the different courts. Ninety-one cases are still outstanding in respect of which the Sheriffs have not yet made returns. Similarly, on the 1st June, 1905, being the last gale day in respect of which legal proceedings for annuities have been taken, the number of payers was 12,901, all of whom paid on application with the exception of ninety-three, against whom writs or civil bills were issued. Sixty-six of these paid before the cases came up for hearing. Eleven cases are still outstanding. The Estates Commissioners will consider any evidence which comes before them of duress brought to bear on tenants to compel them to sign purchase agreements, and will take such action as they may consider just and within the powers vested in them by law.

    Mrs. Eliza Williams' Youghal Estate.
    MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether an originating application in connection with the estate of Mrs. Eliza Williams, situate in the county of Waterford, near Youghal, was lodged with the Estates Commissioners in or about August last; whether he is aware that the tenants in the estate formerly numbered three, viz., John Power, John Sullivan, and Mrs. Lombard; that the two first-named were evicted, and that John Power's eviction was for non-payment of the yearly rent of £118 11s., and took place after the Land Sub-Commission had made an order reducing the rent to £82, and while an appeal by the landlord was pending against the order of the Sub-Commission; whether he is aware that the agent, Mr. Wills
    106
    Purcell, has become tenant of the evicted lands, and signed an agreement to purchase same, which has been lodged with the Estates Commissioners; and whether the Estates Commissioners will take steps without delay to inquire into the circumstances, and, if possible, to secure the restoration of the evicted tenants.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that an originating application in respect of this estate was lodged with them on the 30th August, 1905, the proposed purchasers being Mr. W. W. Purcell in respect of 123 acres, and Mr. F. Lombard in respect of thirty acres. The case has not yet been dealt with by the Commissioners, but when dealing with it they will carefully consider and inquire into the application of John Power and any other evicted tenant who may make application for reinstatement. I cannot enter into the consideration of the circumstances attending the eviction of John Power, which, I understand, took place in 1889; but the Commissioners will doubtless inquire into all the circumstances.

    Leahy's Estate, Cahirciveen.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Estates Commissioners has been called to the circumstances under which negotiations for the sale of the J. W. Leahy Estate at Aghatubrid, Cahirciveen, have been carried on; and whether a sale of this estate will be sanctioned at twenty-three years' purchase on what are really first-term rents, in view of the fact that the tenants were compelled to sign purchase agreements, through being threatened with a claim for so-called arrears.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that seventeen agreements for purchase in respect of this estate have been lodged. In three of these cases in which judicial rents have been fixed since 1896, the average number of years' purchase is twenty-three. The Commissioners have no knowledge of the circumstances under which the negotiations for sale were carried on, nor have they any information that duress was used against the tenants.

    107
    If any complaint to that effect should be made to them, they would investigate the matter before sanctioning the advances.

    Land Commission and the Labourers' Acts.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the delay of the Land Commission in sub-dividing the holdings under the Labourers' Acts, and so hindering the provision of sanitary accommodation for the labourers; and what steps he proposes taking to remedy this delay.
    MR. BRYCE: It is assumed that the hon. Member refers to cases in which rural district councils acquire, for the purposes of the Labourers' Acts, lands which form portions of holdings subject to the payment of land purchase annuities. I am informed by the Land Com mission that in all such cases they perform their statutory duty of apportioning the future payment of the annuities and communicate their decision to the parties interested with as little delay as possible.

    Bangor (County Down) Post Office.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: I bog to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has come to any decision as to the site of the new post office for Bangor, County Down.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: An offer has been received which is now under consideration, to build a new Office at the corner of Main Street and Castle Square.

    Ballylinan (Queen's County) Postal Service,
    MR. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that telegrams addressed to different parts of the district served by Ballylinan, Queen's County, post office, are frequently delayed, and if received in the afternoon are not delivered until the following day; and that there is but one telegraph messenger, who has to walk, the longest distance about six miles; and will arrangements be made for a more expeditious service, and will the messenger be provided with a bicycle.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am assured that it is not the case that
    108
    telegrams for delivery from Ballylinan are delayed or kept over till the following day. There is, normally, one regular telegraph messenger employed at Ballylinan, but at the present time the place is vacant. Sufficient casual messengers are, however, available. No complaints in reference to the delivery service have been received, but I will consider whether the supply of a bicycle would be justified.

    Stradbally and Luggacurran Letter Deliveries.
    MR. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the postman delivering letters between Stradbally and Luggacurran commences duty at 9.15 a.m., is due to arrive at Luggacurran at 12.45, walking a distance of 10¼ miles in 3½ hours; that he starts on return journey at 5.10 p.m., arriving at Stradbally at 7.15 p.m., a distance of 6½ miles in 2¼ hours; that the outward journey has recently been increased by including a district not previously served by him, with the consequent delay of letters at Luggacurran; and whether, seeing that there is a sub post office only one mile from the houses served by the inclusion of the added district, the present arrangement will be altered to insure an earlier delivery at Luggacurran; is he aware that the present postman has twenty-seven years' service without an unfavourable record; will he say what is the amount of his weekly wage; and will he be in future provided with some mode of conveyance, especially during the winter months.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Inquiries are being made on this subject, and I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as they are completed.

    Ireland and the Canal Commission.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade will the proposed Inland Navigation Commission extend its operation to Ireland; if so, will the Commissioners hold a sitting in Dublin and summon evidence with reference to the Royal Canal; will he take immediate steps to prevent the filling up of any portion of that canal by the Midland Great Western Railway Company; and will he require that company to execute the works specified as necessary to navigation on that canal by

    109
    Major Marindin in his Report of 23rd August, 1895.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Royal Commission will deal with Irish Canals, and will no doubt take such steps as may seem necessary to them in the conduct of their inquiry to obtain any information they desire as to the Royal Canal. In the meantime, as stated in my reply to the hon. Member for the Blackrock Division of Dublin, the consideration of the proposed abandonment of a portion of that canal will not be proceeded with. The Board of Trade have no powers which would enable them to require the Midland Great Western Railway Company to carry out improvements, but it was understood that the company took steps some years since to remedy the defects pointed out by Sir Francis Marindin.

    Motor Car Commission.
    MR. ROSE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Report of the Motor Car Commission is likely to be received.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): I am told by Lord Selby, the Chairman of the Commission, that he is not in a position to say when the Report will be issued.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—THE FISCAL DEBATE.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: May I ask the Government intentions as to the course of business?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The course of business for the next two or three days has been rather disturbed by information received since I came into the House. We have been looking forward to the fiscal debate taking place on Thursday. Now I am told that neither the Member for the City of London nor the Member for West Birmingham can be in his place on Thursday, and the debate must be put off until Monday, the 12th. In that ease the Government must make the best arrangement they can. I do not know whether the House in these peculiar circumstances will agree to take the Army Estimates on Thursday, the
110
Government undertaking that the Ministerial statement relating to Army Estimates shall be in the hands of Members on Tuesday night, and the Estimates themselves circulated on Wednesday morning. I admit this is short notice, but I think, in the dilemma in which we are placed, the House may possibly agree to that course.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I fully realise the difficulty. So far as the Opposition are concerned we accept the arrangement.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Charles Joseph Dolan, esquire, for the County of Leitrim (North Leitrim Division).
NEW BILLS.
  SCHOOL BOARD ELECTORATE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To admit to the School Board Elec torate of Scotland persons entitled to vote for the County Cuncil Election," presented by Mr. Weir; supported by Mr. Alpheus C. Morton, Mr. John Dewar, Mr. Leicester Harmsworth, Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Cathcart Wason, Mr. J. A. Bryce, and Mr. A. Williamson; to be read a second time upon Friday, 30th March, and to be printed. [Bill 67.]
  DOGS (PROTECTION) BILL.
  "To prohibit Experiments upon Dogs," presented by Mr. Ellis Griffith; supported by Colonel Lockwood, Mr. Channing, Mr. Field, Mr. Weir, Mr. Sloan, Mr. Tomkinson, Mr. Crooks, Mr. Clement Edwards, Mr. Swift MacNeill, and Colonel Sandys; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 68.]

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (PROCEDURE).
  The Select Committee on House of Commons (Procedure) was nominated of, Mr. Blake, Mr. Charles Craig, Mr. Akers-Douglas, Mr. John Ellis, Mr. Samuel Evans, Mr. H. W. Forster, Sir Henry Fowler, Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Laurence Hardy, Sir Joseph Leese, Mr. M'Crae,

  111
  Mr. William Redmond, Mr. J. H.Whitley, Mr. Wood, and Sir James Woodhouse.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to report from time to time.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Mr. George Whitley.)

  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  The Select Committee on Public Petitions was nominated of, Mr. E. Barry, Mr. Burt, Mr. Ellis Griffith, Mr. Leicester Harmsworth, Mr. Henniker Heaton, Colonel Kenyon-Slaney, Colonel Legge, Mr. M'Arthur, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. J. W. Philipps, Mr. Charles Shaw, Lord Willoughby de Eresby, Mr. Wills, and Mr. Henry J. Wilson.
  Ordered, That Three be the Quorum.—(Mr George Whiteley.)

  SUPPLY [1ST ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1906–7 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £21,410,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907, viz.:—

  CIVIL SERVICES.
  CLASS II.

  United Kingdom and England:—

  £

  Home Office

  66,000

  CLASS V.

  Diplomatic and Consular Services

  250,000

  CLASS II.

  United Kingdom and England:—

  Local Government Board

  86,000

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  Customs

  350,000

  Inland Revenue

  830,000

  Post Office

  6,250,000

  Total for Revenue Departments

  £7,430,000

  Grand Total

  £21,410,000."

  MR. H. J. TENNANTsaid that he proposed to move a reduction of the Vote by £100 in order to give the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary an opportunity of making a statement on two important matters connected with the administration of his Department now ripe for his decision. The question he proposed first to bring under the notice of the Committee was connected with the by-laws issued by the London County Council under the Employment of Children Act. Under this Act, which was passed three years ago, local authorities were required to make certain by-laws and to submit them for confirmation to the Home Office, which was given power to hold an inquiry into the subject. The London County Council submitted their proposed by-laws to the Home Office more than two years ago, and he complained that these by-laws were still under the consideration of the Department. He was quite aware that his right hon. friend was not responsible for that; but still he was entitled to express his opinion that the inaction of the Home Office had been most unfortunate. The most important points raised in the by-laws were street trading by girls under sixteen years of age, the hours of employment of children of school age, and the employment of children in barbers' shops. With regard to the last-named they had to remember that these barbers shops usually were badly ventilated, that much bad language was used in many of them, and that not a few were merely betting dens whither bookmakers resorted, were, in fact, chiefly kept open for that purpose. He was aware that Mr. Chester Jones informed the Home Office and the public in his Report that he was not convinced that this was the case, but the reading of that Report certainly had not carried to his mind the conviction that the facts were not as stated. Indeed, he had seldom read a Report which, to his mind, was more unfortunately conceived and executed. The next point was as to the hours of employment of children of school age. How could these children, who had been well described by the Member for Northampton as "the trustees of posterity," derive profit from their schooling under the conditions which Mr. Chester Jones in his Report appeared to approve? They were permitted to begin delivering milk or papers at 6 a.m., and would go
  116
  home to breakfast at 8.30, having, it may be, to walk a mile and begin their schooling at nine. Then after school they were allowed to go on working till nine o'clock so that it would be ten o'clock before they got to bed ! How could they expect such children to become strong, useful and healthy citizens? Again, there was the question of street trading by girls under sixteen years of age. Three years ago in the Committee upstairs he was successful in carrying an Amendment prohibiting street trading by girls under sixteen, but unfortunately on the Report Stage he was defeated on that point. Expert opinion which he was able to quote at the time was very strongly in favour of the prohibition. Witnesses for great cities like Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dublin and Birmingham, all appealed for prohibition. What did they say? They declared that it constituted "a considerable danger to the girls, who came so utterly to the bad." It unfitted them entirely for any other form of employment. The Chief Constable of Birmingham said "once a street trader, always a street trader." He wished the House would bear that in mind. He could not think it would willingly condemn these poor children to such a life from which there was so little probability of escape. Mr. Chester Jones in his Report had failed entirely to realise the intentions of Parliament. Parliament certainly appreciated the danger to morals; but behind all that there was the devastating influence of the street on character and industry. This danger had entirely escaped Mr. Chester Jones. In the course of the debate to which he was referring, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the St. Augustine Division of Kent, who was then Home Secretary, said he did not suppose that the local authorities would fail to make proper by-laws, and he added that those authorities knew best what was good for the children in their districts. That might be so; indeed, he was prepared to maintain that many had shown they were anxious to safeguard the interests of the children. What had been the action of the London County Council? Originally it asked that it should be empowered to prohibit altogether street trading by girls under sixteen, and it was on the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Augustine's that they put in a provision that children

  117
  might be so engaged if accompanied by a parent. He earnestly hoped the right hon. Gentleman who was now at the head of the Home Office and his advisers would allow the Council to revert to their original intention in this matter. He could not believe that the right hon. Gentleman would allow himself to be led away by a Report unillumined by any ray of sympathy or imagination. Perhaps he ought not to say "imagination," for Mr. Chester Jones declared that the opposition to the by-laws had been most faint-hearted, and again—
  "The lack of opposition may have been due to some cause of which I am not aware."
  Such was the character of Mr. Chester Jones's imagination. And what was his advice? It was that these children, the future mothers of our race, should have no obstacle put in their path, but should be permitted to run their unimpeded course in the gutters of our highways.
  The second subject with which he proposed to deal had regard to the new scheme of examination for inspectorships under the Factory Act, for which he knew his right hon. friend was not responsible. Some hon. friends of his might say that it was only a detail. That he admitted to the full, but efficiency of administration, after all, depended in great measure on details. Formerly there were eight subjects for examination, of which six were compulsory. Now there were eleven, of which only two—English composition and arithmetic—were compulsory. Two others—sanitary science and factory law—were deferred for two years, but neither mathematics, economics, chemistry, physics, mechanics or the history of industrial and social legislation were to be taken compulsorily by the candidate. But how was an inspector who was deficient in the knowledge of those subjects to do his duty? It was absolutely essential, in his opinion, that he should have such knowledge. His right hon. friend told him that the examination now was only in book knowledge, and that they would acquire experience which in factory law and sanitary science could be tested. Where was he to learn physics? Was it to be in the laboratories of the employers? He thought it very unfortunate that this experiment should be made. Take the case of an inspector ignorant of mechanics. Was he to wait to gain
  118
  his experience until, a safety valve failing to operate, a number of workmen had been sent to their death. How could they expect an inspector to conduct a prosecution for failure to fence complicated and dangerous machinery unless he knew something about mechanism! This Department was indeed a very important one. The figures for 1904, which were the last available, showed that in this country there were 257,130 factories and workshops, docks, warehouses, etc., an increase of 3,246 over 1903. The persons employed numbered roughly 4,250,000. The total number of inspectors was 154, so that for each inspector there were 28,217 people employed. It might be said that the Department had grown rapidly seeing that in 1894 there were only 100 inspectors, but since that year the number of factories and workshops had grown from 169,849 to 257,130. In 1904, 93,968 accidents were reported to the Department. Thus it would be seen that this was a most important Department. Some of the members of the staff were his personal friends. For thirteen years he had carefully watched the discharge of the multifarious and onerous duties of the Department, which he submitted were discharged in a manner which commanded the admiration of the House. It was of vital importance that they should not in any way impair the efficiency of this overworked Department which was the guardian of the lives, limbs and liberties, of 4,250,000 of His Majesty's subjects. What were they going to do by this new system? Two alternatives would be open under it. Either these novices and tyros would have to be accompanied in their rounds by experienced inspectors, or else they would have to do their work at their own sweet will, and would inevitably bring the Department and the administration of the law into contempt. At the very time when increased efficiency was demanded, when they were increasing their demands on employers could they approve such a change? Every new reform would be regarded with suspicion, and every new act might be met with hostility; they would be laying up a store of enmity which would cripple the administration and hamper the usefulness of the Department, and the right hon. Gentleman would be driven back on the path beaten and

  119
  caked with the footmarks of his predecessors—the path of the line of least resistance. He earnestly appealed to his right hon. friend to eschew this path and to adopt a course of bold and vigorous reform.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item, Class 2, Vote 4 (Home Office), be reduced by £100."—(Mr. H. J. Tennant.)
  MB. J. R. MACDONALDsaid the matters which the hon. Member opposite had brought before the House were undoubtedly matters of detail, but as had been truly observed, it was just in so far as these matters of detail were successfully dealt with by the Home Office that that Department's credit would stand. It would be unnecessary for them to push very hard the first subject raised by the hon. Member for Berwickshire. They knew that the right hon. Gentleman was not responsible for that extraordinary delay by which a simple code of by-laws, drafted by a very responsible authority after full investigation and after having been examined by two of its most important committees, had been allowed to lie for two years on somebody's table at the Home Office; and then were made the subject of another exhaustive inquiry. He had confidence that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to satisfy the County Council upon this matter. He should like to emphasise on behalf of those associated with him one important point. At the present moment we are face to face with the unemployed problem, and those who had studied that problem in detail had come to the conclusion that there was no more prolific source of unemployment than allowing boys and girls to go on to the streets after school hours to earn money as street traders. If the Home Secretary inquired into that subject he would find that the welfare not merely of the children themselves, but of the nation, would depend on a wise and active administration of some by-law prohibiting street trading as far as it could be prohibited. He had lived in hope that when the Home Secretary came into office and discovered the extraordinary syllabus issued in January this year, which had altered the character of our factory inspectors, the right hon. Gentleman would
  120
  assert his authority and order it to be held over until he had had time to hold an inquiry into its meaning, operation, and design. He would venture to show why the Home Secretary should revise his opinion as regards that syllabus. Factory inspectors as soon as they were appointed enjoyed a salary of £200 and were entitled to enter factories and examine the conditions existing in them. They had to decide whether machines were dangerous or not after only a few days of passing their examination in which they might say, according to the syllabus, that they were absolutely ignorant of everything connected with machines. The inspector might have to examine into the causes of accidents—causes of which he might confess in his examination to be absolutely ignorant; he might have to decide on the efficiency or inefficiency of structures; he had to examine dangerous processes and come to conclusions regarding them, and he had to prosecute, or make himself responsible for prosecutions, under reports given to the Home Office by his subordinates. These gentlemen, armed with this authority and charged with the responsibility of this office, might declare, according to the subjects he had chosen in his examination, that he was ignorant of practical mechanics, ignorant of physics, and ignorant of chemistry. There were only two obligatory subjects, English composition—which only amounted to essay writing on any subject under the sun—and arithmetic, which was equal to the fourth standard which he had to pass at school thirty years ago. There were four subjects he could take from among eight—English literature from Shakespeare to Wordsworth—he was glad that the Home Office had not abandoned hope of having poets among the mechanical workers—English history, which must relate to factory legislation—general modern history, such as the history of the civilised world from the beginning of the sixteenth to the end of the nineteenth century, and either French, German, or Italian. If he was not educated in the modern languages he could take higher mathematics. This extraordinary syllabus eliminated every possible subject that had a practical bearing on the work of the office for which the candidate was sitting. There was not a single test placed

  121
  upon a theoretical knowledge of the practical work, or upon the operations of the practical work itself. By this curious arrangement a young student coming down from the university could pass this examination without any supplementary study. If the Home Secretary would examine this syllabus and compare It with the ordinary class work, at Oxford particularly, he would discover that the questions which the student had most at his finger ends when he left the university were just the questions which enabled him to scrape through and become a fully qualified factory inspector. That was not a heightening of the standard, for the Labour Members would be the last, on account of their experience of factory inspection and the great interest involved, to hinder the right hon. Gentleman in making the standard of examination higher and more efficient with a view to the work being better done by the inspectors, but they would strongly oppose any step which would earmark the position of factory inspector to a certain small class, which was really the effect of the promulgation of this syllabus. Then there was the age reservation, under which in the case of the manager of a factory the age might be raised. Fancy asking the manager of a factory to pass a general examination in the history of the civilised world from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century, or to answer a paper in advanced geometry. To ask a man who was claiming exemption under that addendum to sit down and pass an examination like that was simply insulting the whole class to which he belonged. Then they wanted general education as well as detailed knowledge. The Labour Party would not object to that, but it was surely a very severe reflection upon working classes that general education could only be had inside a university. The general education necessary for an efficient factory inspector, in his opinion, was better obtained outside than inside a university. As a matter of fact at the present time, owing to polytechnics and an excellent system of evening technical education, combined with a revised system of apprenticeship, they were making it more possible for the sons of the working classes to enter those responsible positions of the State and fill them with
  122
  credit, but this purely academical and theoretical university and collegiate syllabus was putting a premium upon book learning, and making it impossible for a man with a practical knowledge of factory theory and practice to compete with young men just leaving Oxford and Cambridge. He might say that when he was in Johannesburg he met almost the whole of Balliol University, and the only justification given him was that under circumstances such as existed there, the administrators were said to require a very general knowledge and a general education. Every single one of those gentlemen had been an absolute failure [Cries of "No, no!"]. Perhaps there was one exception, but with one exception the whole of the Balliol kindergarten in South Africa had been a failure. The right hon. Gentleman was proceeding precisely on the same lines as those responsible for the Transvaal acted upon immediately after the war, and he ventured to prophesy that if the experiment was conducted for three or four years the same disastrous results would have to be recorded at the Factory Department of the Home Office. These men when appointed were handed over to subordinates, and the time of the subordinates was taken up looking after them. These very men, who had not the opportunity of becoming full inspectors, had to coach the men who were appointed to the full inspectorships. It was impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to arrange it otherwise, but he said he was going to give two years probation. That was nothing new. They had two years probation now. As a matter of fact, in a Supplementary Memorandum which was issued the two years probation was extended, and what he was afraid of was that this also was going to continue. At the end of two years the Home Secretary might say, "I am willing to extend the probationary period for the inspectors who have not been satisfactory." Were they going to have the two years extended as it was possible to extend them now? Were these theoretical gentlemen to be kept permanently on the factory inspector staff He thought that was exceedingly unfair to employers. The Labour Party were anxious to act in the fairest way they could towards

  123
  employers, and it was certainly unfair that employers who were doing their best to meet the requirements of the Home Office should have their factories inspected by men who had no practical knowledge of what was going on in the factories. Decent employers of labour should make a strong protest against this attempt to use the factories as schools for university men who received appointments as inspectors. There never was a happier hunting ground provided by the ratepayers for people who were able to send their sons to be educated at Oxford, and whose idea of respectable occupation was that they should turn their attention to the Civil Service. This was an expression of the tendency which had been going on for some time. There was a rule in the Civil Service, he understood, which made it impossible for men in the lower grades to rise to the higher grades of the service. This syllabus must be considered in view of the organisation of the staff. Let him remind the Committee what the organisation of the staff was at present. There were thirty-six assistant inspectors. They were appointed by a colleague of the right hon. Gentleman when a Liberal Government was in office. When appointed they had larger powers than they had now, and assurances were given that they would have opportunities of rising in the service. They were at first able to enter factories, but there had been a process going on during the past thirteen years which had closed the doors to the assistant inspectors. Now, if an assistant inspector went into a work place and discovered irregularities, all that had to be done was for the person responsible for the irregularities to show a gas engine in order to be able to tell the assistant inspector that he was in a factory and not a work shop. In such a case, the assistant inspector had no power whatever; he could only report the occurrence to the full inspector and the whole process of investigation had to go on again. Of the thirty-six assistant inspectors, twenty had reached the maximum salary and position. The maximum salary of an assistant inspector was £150 and the minimum salary of a junior full inspector £200. Every pressure had been brought to bear on the Home Office to allow these assistant inspectors
  124
  who had reached the maximum to be promoted to positions where they would enjoy higher salary and more power, and, if he might say so, more honour in respect of the excellent work they had been doing since their appointment. It was a matter of common knowledge that one of these inspectors passed an examination a short time ago for the full inspectorship, but from that day he had never been called upon to fill a vacancy although several had occurred since. After that three gentlemen from the universities passed examinations for inspectorships, and two of the number were appointed to fill vacancies, and the third gentleman who was not appointed at the time had since without further examination received an appointment. That was how the workmen were treated on the one hand and how the middle class university men were treated on the other. Twenty men who had reached the maximum, who had been trained at the public expense, and who had made themselves efficient, were, according to the methods of the Home Office, kept from entering the higher positions, while new, untried, and unknown men were, upon mere classical and literary examinations, going to be placed in the higher positions. What could they expect their assistant inspectors to think if their merits were not recognised? The only way in which their merits were at present recognised was by handing over to them the newly appointed men to be initiated in the work which they themselves knew. Although the assistant inspectors passed examinations they were not encouraged to study and to acquire the general knowledge and culture which would qualify them for the higher positions. If it were necessary he thought he could also make out a similar case as regards the women. It must not be imagined that the appointment of women as factory inspectors was such a grand thing as some people thought. At the present time the right hon. Gentleman would discover by looking at the records of the Home Office that practical women with a knowledge of sanitary science and law, and of ad-ministration, had been applying for appointments for years, while untried clerks and private secretaries without practical experience had been appointed

  125
  Over their heads. He ventured to hope that the right hon. Gentleman would very seriously consider the down grade in factory inspection which was marked so conspicuously by the issue of this syllabus. He and his hon. friends of the Labour Party held that capital should not be unnecessarily harried by untried men of no experience, amateurs who had merely passed literary examinations; they held also that workmen should not be exposed to the dangers of their calling by the imperfect knowledge of inspectors. He still trusted that the right hon. Gentleman when he replied would be able to say that he could see his way to offer some of the vacancies which were impending in the factory inspection department to practical men and women who were fitted by their experience for the work, and thereby to fulfil the great hopes which had been raised as to what was going to happen now that his Party had come into office.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the hon. Gentleman opposite, in his concluding words, spoke of the women inspectors employed by the Home Office, and the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment thanked the Home Secretary for increasing the inspectorate in the women's department. His impression of the reply given by the Home Secretary to a question a day or two ago was that the increase of a single inspector in the Estimate was not the increase which was now contemplated. He understood it was intended that a further increase should take place. On that question he had to thank the Home Secretary for the action he had in contemplation, and to express his agreement with the hon. Gentleman opposite in wishing that the new appointments should be kept, if possible, up to the high standard which had prevailed in the existing staff. No one who knew the facts could doubt the excellent service which had been rendered, and everyone who wished for the successful working of the department would hope that the future appointments would be up to the standard of the highest and best prevailing at present. To some extent he shared the apprehensions of previous speakers, but
  126
  it was not for him to go into the details which they had so admirably stated in regard to the rules under the Employment of Children's Act. On the general principle he would say that the rules which had been so carefully thought out by the County Council should not be delayed for two years. His wish had always been to support the municipal and the local authorities in the work of their districts, and so far as the Home Office was consulted in regard to rules of this sort—and the Local Government Board in regard to similar rules—authority should be exerted with the view of co-ordinating the action of the local authorities rather than with the view of putting difficulties in their way. No one who knew the state of things prevailing in this country could doubt that the London County Council had the sympathy of the great cities in this matter. He joined his hon friends the mover and seconder of the Amendment in urging the Home Office to meet them as quickly as possible. The honour and the responsibility in regard to the rules depended virtually on the municipal body; they were the people who would be blamed if things went wrong; and they were the people who must know the facts better than any others could do. He thought, therefore, they ought to be trusted. The hon. Member for Berwickshire had referred to the work of the officers of the factory department and to the international conferences in which we had from time to time taken part. Last year on the Home Office Vote he himself made an attack on the then Government for having refused, on the advice of some of their officials, to take an effective part in first-rate international labour conferences. He pointed out at that time the reasons which made it overwhelmingly necessary for this country to be at the head of the movement and he showed how we were falling into the rear. He took this occasion again to point out to the House of Commons that it was not only the case that we had dropped out of the running in the international topics which he detailed last year, but to show that we had dropped out of the running with respect to subjects which were coming before the House this session. The Home Office had got behind in the advice they had received in a number of

  127
  cases, and he could not help thinking that any weakness in the Department as regarded these practical questions would be most detrimental. They were going this session to discuss the whole amendment of the Workmen's Compensation Act in this country, and yet this was the only country which had taken no part in the international discussion of this subject at the Conferences in Dusseldorf in 1902 and in Vienna in 1905. All the difficulties arising here, and which would arise, had been dealt with most efficiently by the representatives of foreign Governments at these Conferences at which this country was unrepresented. When last year, by pressure in the House of Commons, they were successful in getting our Government represented on other classes of subjects, this country refused to sign the protocols. If there was any question bearing on legislation on which the Home Office must trust to the experienced advice of its Factory and Workshop Department, it was this one, and he was certain that that advice would be in the direction of taking part in international action. For example, all the other Powers were now going to make common their legislation in regard to compensation for accidents by means of treaties. At the present moment an alteration was pending in the system of recruiting the inspectorate of the Home Office. When his attention was called to it last winter it seemed to him impossible that such action should have been proposed to be taken. He had sent the syllabus issued by the Home Office to two of the highest authorities in this country on the practical working of factory inspection, and both condemned the new syllabus in the most positive terms. Under these circumstances he joined earnestly with his hon. friend who had spoken for his own personal knowledge, in the belief that this was a retrograde step in the recruitment of that Department, and he also joined with him in urging the Home Secretary to either withdraw or modify the syllabus.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,)said that his hon. friend the Member for Berwickshire had referred to the bye-laws in regard to the employment of children
  128
  with special reference to London, and complaint had been made by him and by the hon. Member for Leicester as to the long delay in bringing about some solution of the question. Of course he could not say what had passed during the last two years, but he thought, that though there had been numerous causes for the delay, it had been somewhat unduly prolonged. When he came into office he found a report from Mr. Chester Jones on the subject, which had been sent to the London County Council for their observations, and he had waited for their reply. Personally, he had had no opportunity to lose any time, for he had no experience of the subject at that particular stage; but he hoped that the London County Council would send in their observations as soon as possible. His mind was perfectly unbiassed on the subject, but he had had such a pressure of other business that he had not been able to approach the full consideration of this particular matter. He also took note of the observations of the right hon. baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean in regard to the importance of co-ordinating whatever was done under this Act throughout the country. He passed from that to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the Berne Conference. He agreed that we were much behind other nations in matters relating to labour. When he came into office he found that his predecessor had this matter in hand, and was about to make certain proposals when his term of office was cut short. He was now in a position to tell the Committee how matters stood at present. The Swiss Government had sent a formal communication to our Government, asking for a reply to their proposal regarding the Berne Conference. Our answer, which had now been sent, or at any rate was on its way, was to the effect that the British Government accepted the principle of representation at these International Conferences and would be ready—subject, of course, to certain conditions which naturally they made on behalf of this country—to take part in these International Conferences on matters relating to labour and general industrial concerns as between one nation and another, and, in fact, between all civilised nations. It appeared to him

  129
  that nothing but good could result from such Conferences. He was not prepared to accept all that had been said as to the disastrous effects of the system of examinations for Home Office inspectors by the hon. Member for Leicester, although the hon. Gentleman had given a pretty clear account of how they appeared to operate. They all desired to raise the standard of examination in the best manner, and they all desired to get the best and most practical men appointed as inspectors. It was extremely difficult and skilled work, and everybody recognised that practical qualities and judgment, as well as the acquisition of practical skill in actual technical handicraft, were necessary. Of course, it was obvious that he was not concerned with all the preliminary steps out of which the new system was evolved. As a matter of fact, the consideration of the new system had been going on for the last fifteen months at the Home Office, and he had no doubt his right hon. friend would be able to give the views he held in support of the system for which the right hon. Gentleman was more responsible than he was. His right lion, friend shook his head, but when he came into office he found these proposals in print. Might he ask hon. Members whether, from the point of view of continuity in administration, it was desirable when a new Minister came into office for him to pull up by the roots the things which had been gone into with great care and at great expense by his predecessor? Then he had to consider whether, after all, this system of examination had not distinct elements of good in it. His hon. friend the Member for Berwickshire spoke of the probationary period as something new. He said that for a great deal of the time during the period which these novices, who were to be appointed under the new system, were engaged, they were learning their business at the expense of the manufacturers and their employers. That was not a true description, and under the old system they had to be examined in subjects in which they had actually no personal training. As his hon. friend said, they had acquired book learning for the purpose of the exercise of their calling, by a process of
  130
  cramming, which did no harm in a good many cases, but perhaps in some did a great deal of harm. These novices also under the old system had been inducted into their duties by the senior factory inspectors.
  MR. J. E. MACDONALDasked whether he might assume that they would pass an examination on practical subjects?
  MR. GLADSTONEagreed that some of the criticisms passed upon the new syllabus had force in them, but he pointed out that, after all, the Secretary of State was responsible for giving the nominations for the examinations. If nominations were given to a man with no other qualification than that humorously described by the hon. Member for Leicester, it might be quite possible to pass to these positions, through this examination, men who had no special qualification. Then it became a question of how this system of examination was going to be worked. At any rate, he gave this assurance to the Committee, that so far as he was concerned, he had no desire to see changes in the position of the staff in the direction feared by his hon. friends who had spoken in the debate. So far as he was concerned he would do his utmost to see that no such changes came about and that the qualifications of the inspectors, should be not only maintained at the present height, but, if possible, improved. In administering the Factory Department he would be particularly on his guard against the possible evils from the point of view of the hon. Member for Leicester, and he took note with some little reservation of the fact that the hon. Member preferred those who were outside rather than inside the university circle. He made that reservation, because there were new universities as well as old universities, and because there were university men among the inspectors who had done extremely well. He did not anticipate that at the worst, even if he were wrong, and the hon. Member for Leicester and his hon. friend below the

  131
  gangway were right, any great danger would result, because if he found that the new system was not working well, it would be very easy to change it and to go back to the system which experience had tested.
  MR. H. J. TENNANTinquired whether the system would be retained for two years.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid that two years was rather a long time to bind oneself to, and he made no pretence of having gone into the whole of the reasons for carrying out this scheme. He would be glad to consider whether any change was necessary in the second examination, and also the hon. Member for Leicester's question about the period of time. The hon. Member for Leicester said he had heard that if the probationary inspectors were found to be quite unsatisfactory, then a further extension of the two years might be obtained.
  MR. J. R. MACDONALDsaid that was a very bad principle.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid he quite agreed that it was a very bad principle. He should think that if after two years the probationer was found to be unsatisfactory, it would be a reason for not renewing the appointment. He would consider the question of the examination at the end of the period. With regard to these examinations, it had to be borne in mind that the point was how the probationary factory inspectors might be helped to qualify themselves. At any rate, they should be enabled to increase their practical knowledge in these subjects, and it would not be asserted that no knowledge of the mechanics of sound and safe working was required to pass the probationer from that stage to the stage of inspector of factories. Another point raised by the hon. Member for Leicester was the position of inspectors' assistants. He should like to say, in the first instance, that, owing to
  132
  representations made by his right hon. friend opposite to the Treasury, that body had sanctioned an increased allowance of £25 a year to certain of the best of the. assistants which, although it was a small amount, showed that steps were being taken to improve the condition of these men.
  MR. J. R. MACDONALDasked if that was an honorarium or an increase of salary.
  MR. GLADSTONEreplied that it was an increase of salary. He recognised that the hon. Gentleman had put his finger upon a weak spot in the Act of Parliament. He would take particular notice of these cases. Some years ago he was closely associated with his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in looking into the case of these clerks, and he recognised that extremely few promotions had been made from the ranks of the assistants to those of the inspectors. He also agreed that the assistant inspectors were somewhat prejudiced at present by the new system of examination. Under these circumstances he agreed that, having regard to the work that the assistant inspectors had to do, the scale of pay in their case would be hardly sufficient to make them contented with their position. The fact was that, through no fault of their own, the factory inspectors' assistants had got into backwater. It was an extremely unsatisfactory position both for themselves and for the public service, as they had come to a position where it was impossible to advance, and that fact must tell unfavourably on the work of the men themselves. These were difficulties in the question which he just mentioned, but he saw no difficulty in dealing with the question of inspectors' assistants. It was obvious, that the general standard of factory inspector at the Home Office had risen and was steadily rising, and under these circumstances it was hardly to be expected that the inspectors' assistants should be qualified to do the work of inspectors. It was no fault of their own that they were not qualified for what he might call the higher work of the Inspecting Department. It was impossible that this should not be the case.

  133
  They had not the thinking mind, the full scientific knowledge, the power to handle statistics, or the aptitude of appearing in court and fighting through a mass of details. All these things required knowledge and training, which were not available for the assistants. He saw, however, no reason why a change should not be made, and why the work given to the assistants should not be extended, and perhaps the privilege given to them of rising to a higher grade; in any case, the road ought to be kept open for their rising to the highest grade. They should not be debarred if they had the necessary qualifications. These were the general conclusions he had come to on the subject. He would not go into details; he wished to have time to think this matter out, because it must be considered not only in the light of the system advocated, but in the light of the factory legislation as a whole. He had indicated to the House the general views upon which he would be prepared to act, and he should, he hoped, act without undue delay.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he desired very earnestly to draw attention to an official paper issued in 1905 relating to factory inspection—the more earnestly because the Home Secretary had given a most unsympathetic reply to Questions addressed to him on the subject.
  MR. GLADSTONE: When?
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Ten days ago. The figures in that Report, which was issued by the right hon. Gentleman's own Department, were very striking. They showed that 82,652 women and girls were under the protection of the regulations of the Factory Act, whilst 144,132 were shut out from the protection for want of legislation, for the reason that a large proportion of these women and girls were working in laundries connected with religious institutions. He believed the chief objection to the inspection of such laundries came from those which were carried on under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. In England he believed the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and other churches under which these laundries
  134
  worked had no objection to the inspection of their laundries.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now entering on a subject which in his opinion requires legislation; that he cannot do; he can deal only with matters of administration.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsubmitted that he was entitled to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department admitted, as his predecessor had admitted, that voluntary inspection had failed. He hoped that what he had said would draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the pressing need of something being done with regard to this matter.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid he desired to call attention to a subject upon which there had been a considerable feeling arising, namely, the administration of the Aliens Act by the Home Office. It was true that this Government and this Parliament were not responsible in any way for the passing of that Act but that fact did not relieve them from the responsibility of its administration and making the Act as little onerous and as little discreditable to Englishmen as it was possible to be. For some time past there had been important communications in various newspapers which indicated that the Immigration Boards that had the administration of the Act had been conducting their inquiries, and had been arriving at their conclusions with an exhibition of considerable prejudice, if not actual illegality. The Act was administered by immigration officers who, in the first instance, inquired into the character and quality of the immigrant. There was an appeal from them to the Immigration Boards, but the question which interested the Committee was the composition of the Immigration Boards, which were Courts of Appeal, but which were outside the law. and from which there was no appeal. They were practically uncontrolled in the decisions at which they arrived. He wished to know whether the information in the Answer given by the Home Secretary with regard to a certain case brought to his attention this afternoon came from the Immigration Board, or

  135
  whether his right hon. friend had any further information to substantiate the information he had given, as the allegation against these Immigration Boards was that they had been acting illegally. He desired to call attention to several cases in which the Immigration Boards had acted illegally. In one a Russian tailor who came to this country with £5 10s. in his pocket—the sum mentioned in the Act as being required to show that the immigrant could maintain himself—was ordered to be deported on the ground that there were already a sufficient number of tailors in England. In another case the immigrant desired to plead that he was a political refugee, but was not allowed to do so because he had not raised the plea before the immigration officer. He was not allowed to land. Was it true that men were being sent back to Russia at the present time who were either political or religious refugees? If that was so, as he understood it was, the Committee wanted to know why they were sent back. In many cases these people had the money necessary under the Act to maintain themselves, but even if they had not the £5 on which the Act insisted they ought not to have been rejected. The Act provided that any immigrant who proved that he was seeking admission to this country solely to avoid prosecution or punishment for offences of a political or religious character should be allowed to come in, however poor he might be. That clause was put into the Bill at the instance of Lord Hugh Cecil. It was the speech made by Lord Hugh Cecil which drove the Government of the day into incorporating that clause, and, if the law was now being stretched or broken in any way so as to keep these people out, the Government ought to see that that state of things was put an end to. He did not know whether use was being made by the Immigration Boards of the word "proves" in the Bill—whether those Boards were insisting that a man who said he was a political refugee should bring corroborative evidence to prove that he was so. Was it likely that he would be able to bring corroborative evidence? He would like to ask, first, whether the Government in issuing new regulations—as he hoped they would
  136
  do, and as he thought was indicated in a speech by the Under-Secretary of the Home Department—would, considering the condition of Russia at the present time, put in a suggestion that where a man came from a district in which there had been massacres, such as there had been in hundreds of districts in Russia, the fact that he had come from such a district should be taken as a proof that he was flying from persecution, in view of the difficulty there was of any sort of corroboration. Secondly, he would ask the Government whether under the new regulations they could not make it perfectly clear that these courts were to be held as open courts, and that reports should be obtainable of proceedings in them. When they were on the Opposition side they strenuously objected to there being no kind of appeal. Most of them thought that decisions should be given by an English court of law. As this was not so, he would first ask that these courts should be open courts in future; and, secondly, whether the Government, if they found, after the careful inquiry which he hoped would be instituted, that the present members of these Boards had been stretching their powers to the utmost to keep out these immigrants, they would change the complexion of these boards which, he believed, were appointed entirely by the late Government, who believed in this kind of legislation. There was no reason to support that legislation more than was necessary. It was the one Bill passed last year just to give the late Government an excuse for remaining in office. So little did the country care about it that the one Member from the East End of London who had been returned in support of the Act was the hon. Member for Stepney. All the other Members in the district in which the Bill was going to win votes were swept away. There was no support for the Bill in the country; there was no support for its principles among the working-classes, and the Government would be perfectly justified in doing everything in their power to mitigate the severity of this first piece of Protectionist legislation. They should do all that was possible to admit victims of persecution and to show that this House, even if it did not at some subsequent period repeal this legislation, at any rate disapproved of it.
  SIR W. EVANS GORDONsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had observed that he was the only representative left of those Members from the East End of London who supported the Aliens Act of last year. He would, however, like to remind the Committee that almost every, if not every, candidate in the East End who was successful was a supporter of the Bill, and before its Second Reading begged the then Opposition to support it. He desired to refer to the general opposition to the measure which at present existed. The facts were that a campaign had been organised ever since the Act came into force. He knew the source of that campaign, why it had been organised, and by whom. It was organised in order to prejudice the public in every possible way against the working of the Act. Cases had been cited in the newspapers and particulars given of alleged hardship upon certain immigrants. In one breath it was said that the Press had no means of ascertaining the facts regarding these particular cases which came before the Immigration Board, because the Press was not allowed to attend the Court; and in the next breath, they came forward with cases purporting to represent the real facts. He would ask the Committee how it was possible, if the Press were not admitted to hear these cases, that really truthful particulars could be given to the Press. From whom were those particulars received? They were received presumably from the very persons who alleged themselves to be aggrieved, and they were coloured to taste in order to excite prejudice in the eyes of the public. There had been a remarkable instance of that given to the House to-day. The Home Secretary, in reply to a question, had told the House of a fact of which he was already cognisant, namely, that a letter had been found upon one of the men who were alleged to have been harshly treated, in which the man in question was told that the only chance he had of getting into this country was to say that he had been persecuted, and it gave him the particular details of the story which he was to put before the Immigration Board. That story was that he was supposed to have been kept in a cellar for three days on bread and water,
  138
  and that he had seen his brother murdered before his eyes. That was the sort of thing the boards had to contend with; they had to judge from these people's pleas as to whether they had been persecuted or not. Jewish representatives of great weight and position, such as Mr. Leonard Cohen, had places on these boards, and so far as his information went they had in numerous instances discovered that these pleas of persecution rested upon no foundation whatever. In those cases, no doubt, the boards had rejected the appeal. But not one word had been said in the Press or by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down of the manner in which the Act was being administered in the way of leniency and fairness. He had made some inquiries on the subject and he had been told by a member of the Immigration Board in London—one who was a Jew and in no way in favour of him personally or of the Act—that nothing could exceed the fairness, the impartiality, and the leniency with which it was being administered, and he had spoken in the highest terms of praise of the manner in which the gentlemen sitting on these boards were at present performing their duty. He himself had not the least doubt in his mind that large numbers of people were admitted into this country at the present time who, if the Act were stringently administered, would certainly be excluded under its provisions. He for one welcomed any detailed discussion of the individual cases of alleged persecution or hardship which appeared in the newspapers. He would be the last to wish that any genuine case of persecution should be excluded from this country, but he did beg the Committee to show that spirit of fairplay which he was sure every member desired, and not to accept ex parte statements which were appearing from day to day in the Press, and which, on the evidence itself, must be ex parte, because the Press themselves admitted they were not present at the trials, and could not, therefore, accurately state what actually occurred on the Boards. He felt certain that the Secretary of State for the Home Department would be able to give a satisfactory explanation of almost every one, if not every one, of these individual cases that were brought

  139
  forward. He did so to-day in his reply. There was the case of Alexander Onix, which had aroused a good deal of notice in the Press; but when it came to be inquired into it was found to rest upon a very slender foundation. The individual was alleged to have been a persecuted man from Russia, but it transpired that his real residence was in Copenhagen. [Cries of "No."] He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say so.
  MR. GLADSTONE: He was shipped from Copenhagen.
  SIR W. EVANS GORDONsaid that no doubt that case to a very large extent broke down when it was inquired into. He mentioned the fact that these cases were raised in this House. His belief—and it was confirmed by members of the Jewish persuasion who were especially interested in this matter, and were absolutely impartial—was that the Act was being administered in a manner erring, if any-thing, on the side of leniency rather than on the side; of severity. Hon. Members to whom this matter was perhaps somewhat new would do well to recollect that there were thousands of ne'er-do-wells moving about the Continent of Europe who had no prospect of doing any good in any country, and whom he had seen brought before charitable boards and institutions on the Continent at Hamburg and elsewhere, who would plead anything t0 get into this country, and who, in his humble judgment, it was most necessary to keep out. Those people-were adepts at spinning harrowing tales as to the sufferings they had undergone, and he could assure hon. Members that many of those cases when impartially inquired into broke down. He was aware that the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Under-Secretary were in this matter in a most difficult position, as they were both determined opponents of the Bill last session. They had now to administer the Act, and be felt certain that both the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would administer it perfectly fairly and justly. He hoped and believed that they would not allow any feeling they might hitherto have had to interfere with its just and fair administration. He believed that all the officers of Customs and other De-
  140
  partments involved had carried out their duties in an admirable manner. The fact that an Act in many respects so new and complicated as this, which had given rise to an extraordinary amount of criticism, had worked very smoothly was a credit to the Department which had had it in hand. Those were the views he had heard from people who were perfectly impartial, such as shipowners and others who might be expected to complain if complaint were necessary. He begged the Committee to pause long and consider well before they accepted the sensational statements which were being made from day to day in the newspapers, and, before they came to a decision upon any individual case, to hear the full particulars, and to hear what the Department concerned had to say. He did not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down into the details of general policy. It would, indeed, be out of order at that moment, because the whole policy might come up again for discussion. With regard to the regulations, he hoped that the Committee would remember that the Act had been in force for only about two months, and it was, therefore, early to express any very definite views upon the manner in which it had operated.
  MR. LEIF JONESsaid that no one in the House last session would dispute the sincerity of the support which the hon. Member opposite had given to the Aliens Act, and he was to-day the consistent champion of a lost cause. He had spoken of a campaign to mislead the public in connection with this Act. He knew nothing about any campaign of that sort, and he wished to associate himself with the protest made by the hon. Member for the Elland Division against some of the fruits of the Aliens Act. There was a campaign last year of which the hon. Member opposite might know something, and without such a campaign he did not think the Aliens Act would have disfigured the Statute Book of this country. An appeal had been made to them to hear both sides. That was what they were doing, and it was only to-day that the other side of the case was being put. They objected to the carrying out of this Act, on the ground that it would tend

  141
  to the exclusion of political refugees and immigrants coming to this country for the sake of poverty, and the working of the Act which they were entitled to review had justified the fears which were expressed when the Act was under discussion. The operation of the Act had been capricious. If aliens came in in less number than twelve, they were not interfered with, but if there were more than twelve, then they had to answer searching nterrogatories, and pass the Immigratiion Officer and his Board. He did not know whether it was part of the intention of the little Englanders who supported this Bill to prevent the issue of third-class return tickets to the Continent. The Belgian State Railway had discontinued the issue of such tickets. The English railways had since done the same, and when it was realised that 50 per cent. of the holiday traffic to the Continent consisted of third-class passengers, it would be seen what a blow was being struck at the shipping industry. This was very much of the same character as the injury which would be inflicted upon the shipping interest by some other of those proposals of which they had heard so much.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is now criticising the Act, and he can only deal with the administration of the Act of the present time.
  MR. LEIF JONESsaid that under its operation the Act was excluding refugees who ought to be allowed to find a refuge in this country.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member is disregarding my ruling. He must deal with the administration of the Act and nothing else.
  MR. LEIF JONESsaid the Act was so administered by the Boards of Immigration and their officers that they were shutting out refugees who under the Act were entitled to enter. Those refugees were helpless and ignorant people, and when they came before these Inmigration Boards and were subjected to the difficult rules set up, they lost the opportunity which they might have under the Act of justifying their positions and procuring an entrance. It was upon that
  142
  point that he wished to appeal to the Home Secretary. He would quote three cases. One of them was a refugee from Warsaw, who went out on strike, and was ordered back again to work, but he made his escape from Russia, and he was not allowed to land by the immigration officer in this country. He thought it would be the intention of everyone in this House that a striker should come under the definition of a political refugee. Another case was that of a soldier who refused to fire upon the strikers, and having fled from his country, where he was in danger of his life, he was not allowed to enter, and had to go back to his own country or seek another refuge. Then there was the case of a woman who arrived in England with two young children. She had fled from Odessa after being robbed during the massacre. It was found that she had £9 in her possession, but she was rejected on the ground that she was suffering from weakness. If an immigrant came from a foreign country fleeing from massacre, and she arrived here after a troublesome crossing, it was not at all extraordinary that she should be suffering from weakness. To him that would seem rather more of a reason for helping instead of rejecting her. He thought that even the hon. Member opposite would agree that it was never intended that this Act should be used for the exclusion of such cases, and therefore he associated himself with the feeling which had been expressed that greater care should be taken by the Immigration Board to prevent a recurrence of these cases. He was glad to read the speech delivered by the Home Secretary on Saturday night, for in it he recognised the absurdities and hardships of this Act. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that in one case an action had been done unworthy of the British nation, but he went on to say that the Immigration Boards were sovereign courts whose decisions were final. Was it really true that these Immigrations Boards were sovereign courts? Was it not true that they were under the direction of the right hon. Gentleman, and that they administered the law along the line which he laid down? At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman possessed the power of the purse, and he could by limiting the expenditure limit its evil

  143
  operations. It was no light matter that they were raising, and they were acting with a full sense of responsibility, because they knew that the honour of this country was at stake. It was unworthy of the reputation of a humane and free people, and it did violence to the strong and hereditary sympathy of the people of this country in regard to the poor and oppressed of every land.
  MR. STUART SAMUELsaid that as a member of the Jewish community, to which a large number of these refugees belonged, he wished to state that the administration of the Aliens Act had given them the utmost dissatisfaction, and had excited the unanimous condemnation of the Jewish Press. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman in the new regulations which he proposed to issue would make the Act clear to those poor people who came from foreign countries with no knowledge of the English language and who were unacquainted with the provisions of the Act. The fact that so many appeals had been allowed tended to showed that the Immigration Officers themselves did not well understand the regulations under the Act. The right hon. Gentleman had said that during the month of January out of 202 cases 102 had not been allowed to land, whilst 100 had been allowed to land. He wished to point out that when the Act was passed the intention of Parliament was that this country should be open to the victims of religious and political persecution abroad, quite independently of their state of health and the amount of money they had in their pockets. The people of this country were not prepared to see foreigners persecuted because they were in ill-health. Under the present system of administration an immigrant might not be persecuted if he had £5, but a person who had only £4 10s. might be. That was the logical deduction from the way in which the rules were administered at the present moment. He might mention a case within his own knowledge of three women—mother, daughter (of the name of Stolkiner), and granddaughter—who came from Russia, where the younger of the three had been arrested for distributing pamphlets among the soldiers. Her father had been shot during the recent disturbances in Russia,
  144
  and she came with her mother and grandmother to this country, but they were refused admission because they were not in a state of good health. He maintained that that was absolutely illegal. If a girl whose father had been shot was not the victim of political persecution and in danger of life and limb, he would like to know who was. He wished to know what were the conditions under which they were to be allowed to come into this country. When the Act was passed the intention of the House and of the country generally was that this country should be a haven of refuge for those who were persecuted. The immigration officers had in hundreds of cases been unable properly to understand the regulations which had been issued. They were little to blame for finding it difficult to understand the rules. He did not at present propose to go into the question of the appointment which had been given to the private secretary of the hon. and gallant Member for Stepney. He would review that matter later on, when the Estimates came up for discussion. The hon. and gallant Member alluded to a one-sided view of this question, but if the appointment of a gentleman who was certain to have a bias had been made from the Liberal side of the House he thought it would have been universally condemned. A further reason why it was. desirable that the appeals should be diminished was that the cost of administration depended on the number of appeals. The members of the Immigration Board were paid a fee for each attendance, and therefore the greater the fees the greater the cost. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the St. Augustine's Division, when Home Secretary, stated that the cost to the poor-rates for the maintenance of aliens in 1904 was £28,000. He should look with interest to the cost of administering the Aliens Act. It seemed to him that it would be very poor finance to expend £40,000 in order to avoid an expenditure of £28,000. His own belief was that the Aliens Act would cost a large sum to administer, and that they would still have to expend the £28,000. It would be quite impossible to have any aliens on the rates, so far as the Jewish community was concerned, because they undertook the maintenance of their own poor.
  MR. MADDISONsaid he desired to associate himself with the protest made against the administration of the Aliens Act. He was quite aware that they could not discuss the Act itself to-day, but he thought that the Home Secretary could not do better than always bear in mind that the Aliens Act was one of the most fraudulent pieces of legislation which even the late Government produced. When he remembered that, he also ought to remember that the only way to use that Act anything like decently was to administer it on Liberal principles. Under such administration the benefit of the doubt would on every occasion be given to the immigrant and not to the Immigration Board. The difference between working the Act in the way he suggested and working it otherwise would show itself very distinctly in administration. He asked the Home Secretary to inquire into every one of the cases of alleged mal-administration which had been brought forward and to be very vigilant to detect such cases. He had heard of a case of a family—he thought they were Russian—who were all admitted with the exception of a girl, nine years of age, who was dumb. He did not believe that the girl was legally excluded. When a body of officials was appointed those officials needed watching by this House and by the country at large. Every State official might become a serious danger to the community, and if that State official had to administer an Act which dealt with individual liberty a mistake on his part might damage the reputation of our country. Hence it was necessary to watch him very carefully indeed. He wished to know whether the Home Secretary had power to add to or to alter the constitution of Immigration Boards in any way. He understood that working men were to be put on the panels from which the Boards were selected. If the ex-Home Secretary put any working men on those panels they had not got on to the Immigration Boards yet. He hoped that the present Home Secretary would do something in this direction. It had been proved sufficiently that under the administration of the Act men who were undoubtedly political refugees had been sent back. It was reasonable to ask that
  146
  when a man could prove that he came from a country which was in a state of revolution, as Russia was, that man should be admitted at once, although he had not a cent in his pocket. He and his friends raised this matter under a sense of responsibility, and at the earliest possible moment they would endeavour to eliminate from the Act everything which was against the honour, not only of this country but of humanity, so that no one would be kept out unless he was suffering from infectious disease, or was a criminal.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is talking now about future legislation, and that is not in order.
  MR. MADDISONsaid he was only expressing regret that he could not pursue the subject. He would again ask the Home Secretary to administer the Act in the interests of the political refugee, and not in the interests of that narrow ex-clusivism which was brought forward for electioneering purposes and which had done so much to defame the honour of our country.
  MR. G. A. HARDYsaid he saw from the Estimate that a sum of £11,000 was put down as a charge for salaries in regard to the Aliens Act. There also appeared an item of £1,000 saved in contributions given to the inebriate homes of this country. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary if he would take into serious consideration what that reduction meant. Some few years ago it was definitely promised by the Government, when the inebriate homes were started, that 10s. 6d. would be granted for each inmate. Now they found such contributions reduced to 7s. 6d. The result of that would be that, so far as the county councils were concerned, they would have to take into serious consideration the question whether or not they would continue the homes. This change would affect various inebriate homes in every part of the country. He sincerely trusted that the Home Secretary would consider the matter, so that the poor drunken women of this country might have a chance of reformation.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid their concern and responsibility in regard to the administration of the Act should be in regard to the people of our own country rather than to foreigners. He thought the greatest credit and gratitude were due to the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary for the admirable way in which the rules had been drawn. He earnestly hoped that the present Home Secretary would allow a decent interval to elapse for the new rules to be thoroughly tried before interfering with them in any way. The hon. Member the Under-Secretary for the Home Department had made a speech in which he stated that an early change was contemplated. He hoped the regulations would not be changed until they had been properly and thoroughly tried. He would remind the Committee that Acts of this character had been in force in America for many years. The people of the United States were quite as alive as we were to the sentiments of generosity, charity and hospitality; but there was not the smallest feeling in that country as regarded any hardship. On the contrary, within the last few weeks a Conference had taken place in New York or some other important city, and the conclusion arrived at was that these Acts should be rather strengthen ed than weakened.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman must discuss the administration of the Act in this country.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid that he did not want to discuss the Acts or the policy of the Acts in America, but the regulations under the Act of last Session in this country. What he wanted to ask the Home Secretary was to allow a decent trial of the rules introduced by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor before attempting to interfere with them. He hoped the Home Secretary would inform the Committee how many lunatics and people of that character or suffering from incurable diseases were being supported by the taxpayers and ratepayers of this country and who had been admitted, unfortunately, into charitable institutions here? The case of a crippled child had been mentioned by the hon. Member for Burnley.
  148
  Nobody would show any hardship to a cripple or any person suffering from an incurable diseas; but he did maintain that it was not the business of this country to receive such persons and let them be a burden on the ratepayers and taxpayers. It was the interest of the working people of this country that this Act and the regulations which had been drafted by his right hon. friend the late Home Secretary should be put in force, and that the present Home Secretary should endeavour to administer the Act as passed by the House of Commons.
  MR. J. R. MACDONALDsaid that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had appealed to the Home Secretary to give to the new rules a longer trial; but, as a matter of fact, the two months' trial had been quite sufficient to demonstrate their most objectionable character. He had a list of forty cases which, on the face of them, seemed to be serious breaches of the honourable historical traditions of this country—traditions recognised from one end of the earth to the other, that all persecuted people might find refuge here. He hoped the Home Secretary would not allow such a state of things to last if he could possibly help it. The hon. Member for Central Sheffield talked about the working classes desiring that these regulations should be enforced, but he would like to remind that hon. Gentleman how the working classes the other day signified what their intentions were. Of course it was altogether impossible for the working classes to be absolutely unanimous on this or any other subject. But he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the working classes were prepared to maintain the incurables to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, even at their own expense, rather than close the doors of this country to refugees. The hon. and gallant Member for Stepney, who happened to be in a very happy-go-lucky frame of mind, had discovered that a certain number of ne'er-do-weels were desirous of finding asylum in this country. Undoubtedly some ne'er-do-weels did want to come here. Nobody wanted them; but in the administration of the Act no attempt had been made to discriminate between them and the cases to which attention had been drawn

  149
  this afternoon. There should be some machinery established by which the Home Office would be enabled to separate the genuine political refugee from the impostor and the ne'er-do-weel. Now Alexander Onix, whose case had been referred to, was a genuine political refugee. He came from Russia to Harwich, via Copenhagen, because he had left the Russian Army. His coming was known by political organisations in this country. A statement was made by one Wahl, a civilian comrade, who escaped from Reval with Onix, and this was what Wahl said—
  "The inspector came on board with an interpreter, but the latter spoke only German. Onix knows only his native Esthonian (i.e. Finnish) and some little Russian. Wahl did all the talking for the party of three. The conversation ran like this:—Interpreter: Have you got your passports or papers of identification? Wahl: No, Sir. We have no papers. We are refugees who have just escaped from Russia. Interpreter: Have each of you got £5 in his possession? Wahl: Two of us have, but this man, Onix, has not. He fled in a hurry. But we understand that refugees may come in without money. Interpreter: No, you must each have £5. Wahl then offered to go to London, procure money for Onix, and telegraph it; and the interpreter at first thought this would be accepted. There Was some further talk in English, which Wahl could not understand. Then Wahl said: I can easily send £10. Interpeter (translating for inspector): It's no good, even if you send £20. Interpreter; How long are you going to stay in England? Wahl: Three or four days. We're going to America, and we have to wait for money from Russia. (£15 has since come for Onix to my address.) There was further talk in English, the shipping agent intervening. Then the interpreter told Wahl that if his friend in London would guarantee that Onix was going to America, he would be allowed to enter. He gave him a telegraphic address and said that a telegram before 8 p.m. would be in time. I telegraphed at 6.30, but before my telegram reached Harwich Onix had been deported."
  Now that was a simple statement, and, if the Home Secretary inquired, it would be found that it was perfectly genuine; and that it was a type of certain other cases of a similar character. He and his friends wanted to know the reason for these deportations. Was it because the men were tailors or carpenters or members of trades which were already overstocked in this country? Then, he would ask the Home Secretary to consider whether the Immigration Boards could meet in public and not have secret
  150
  sittings? Another suggestion was that in the future administration of the Act, not only workmen, but the representatives of certain well-known political organisations—such as the "Friends of Russian Freedom," which had done such excellent work—should have a seat on these Boards. The whole point was that genuine political refugees should be allowed to enter this country, whether they had each £5 or only a cent., and whether they were tailors or carpenters or ministers or would-be M.P.'s. The Immigration Boards should be efficient and men should be upon them who understood what were political refugees, where they came from, and whether their cases was genuine or not. He had been glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that there would be better regulations and better administration of them, although he knew that the right hon. Gentleman's hands were tied to a considerable degree. There was another point which the Labour Party desired to bring before the right hon. Gentleman. The Act stated that a political or religious refugee must prove that he was such. Would the right hon. Gentleman consider what was the nature of the proof required to show that an immigrant was a political or religious refugee? And would the right hon. Gentleman frame new regulations making that point clear and simple? The representatives of the working classes in the House were genuinely anxious for the successful administration of the Act, but they were very jealous of the best traditions of this country. The Labour Party looked back with pride upon the magnificent stand which this country had made for the light of asylum for fugitive and persecuted persons and did not desire those privileges to be curtailed.
  SIR CHARLE DILKEsaid the hon. Member had taken a view of the words of the Act which was entirely confirmed by the debates which took place upon them when it was before the House as a Bill. It was the view which was taken of them by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the St. Augustine's Division of Kent when the Bill was before the House, and, although the right hon. Gentleman and he differed in toto as to the wisdom of the measure,

  151
  they were at all events throughout the discussions agreed upon that point. The right hon. Gentleman did not resist the Amendments brought forward on this point, but expressed his desire to give them what they asked for, and even his own friends and supporters complained of his going so far in what he had done. The concessions made were sufficient for Lord Hugh Cecil, who raised the very point which had been debated that afternoon. The noble Lord asked if he was to be told that because an individual, who had been in danger of massacre, had not a certain property standard, he was to be sent back to his native country. That was the whole point of the debate, and the promises which were made turned upon these very words which had been debated this afternoon. The Prime Minister attached no importance to the word "proves" and tried to improve Lord Hugh Cecil's substantive proposal, the noble Lord having raised the same point which they raised to-day. The Prime Minister thought he had met that point and Lord Hugh Cecil, who had protested on behalf of those who claimed the right of religious and political asylum, was satisfied with the words which the right hon. Gentleman proposed. The Opposition of the day however, raised some difficulty, as they were not satisfied and thought they had not been fully met, as they wanted the addition of the word "liberty," which was suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Although the Government divided against the word Lord Hugh Cecil was satisfied, but hon. Members never conceived for a moment that this point would arise in connection with the working of the Act. On the contrary, hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side thought that the Prime Minister had gone too far. Besides the question of political or religious refugees, there was another important matter. They fought the Act of last year, and the worse Bill of the year before, on the question of political and religious refugees, and they thought they had been more successful than they had been, if the Act was to be worked in this way. But there was another important matter, and that was that they had also fought this matter on the ground of its interference with immigrant and trans-
  152
  Channel traffic, and therefore of its interference with the business arrangements of this country and the Continent. Was the Bill of last year worse than they supposed, or had it been made worse by the regulations or the administration of them? He confessed that it seemed to him that both the regulations and the administration of them had been unduly harsh, to a degree which was never contemplated by the opponents of the measure. The regulations or the administration of them must have been worse than the House of Commons contemplated. He was speaking in the presence of one who had had personal experience of the working of this Act. In the regrettable absence of Mr. Bowles from that House they could understand what he would say if he was stopped and asked if he had £5 and was an Englishman. He could imagine the kind of answer he would give in France. Another man he should not like to stop and ask would be the hon. Member for Accrington. The newspapers of America, when President Roosevelt's motor-car was run into by a trolley, had paragraphs of "What President Roosevelt said to the trolley man." It was nothing, as: they would all understand, to what the hon. Member for Accrington would say to the Frenchman who asked him if he was an Englishman. Was it the case that Belgium and France had protested against the working of the Act, as it interfered with ordinary conditions to such a degree that it had produced consequences which nobody expected last year when it was passed? Mistaken as they might have been in passing it, he could not but say that the regulations which were drawn up were worse than the Act itself, and the working of the regulations was worse than the regulations themselves. They ought to have intelligible regulations issued and worked in the spirit in which the House would desire to see them worked.
  SIR JOSEPH LEESEsaid, after his right hon. friend's challenge it was impossible for him to remain silent, though he was not sure that he had not over-described the picture which he could draw. At any rate, he might be allowed to say this, that in his view, not only was this Act of Parliament degrading to the country but it

  153
  was degrading also to the individual Englishman. He was coming home from the Continent a few days ago, and on reaching the gangway of the cross channel steamboat he was confronted and addressed by a small gentleman in French uniform, who asked him in broken English "Are you an Englishman?" He was a good deal surprised but replied as politely as he could, "What is that to you?" For an Englishman returning to his own country to be cross-examined by a foreigner as to his nationality was certainly a new and degrading experience.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I was asked that question and did not think it insulting.
  SIR JOSEPH LEESEsaid, that after he had passed up the gangway, a gentleman on board the ship came to him, and said, "Are you a British subject?" He replied, "Mind your own business." Why should an Englishman going to his own country be insulted? He did not think he looked like an undesirable alien, and he had certainly a respectable ticket in his pocket. So this Act of Parliament, badly administered as it had been in this country, extended insults to the people of this country. When he got on board he said to the steward, "Is there a Frenchman at Folkestone to ask a man going to France whether he is a French citizen? "He said," No, sir, there is no such Act in France."
  COLONEL LOCKWOODrose to call attention to the salaries under the Vivisection of Animals Act.
  MR. CREMERrose to a point of order. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman asked his Question, would the Committee be precluded from further discussion of the question upon which they were engaged?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Committee will not be precluded from further discussion of the topic, but I understand that the Secretary of State for the Home Department wishes to reply now, and if that is so, I will call upon the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid in the first instance he would like to reply to the hon. Member for North Down who had asked him a Question about the inspection of laundries. The hon. Member said that at Question time he had given him a very unsympathetic Answer to the inquiry whether this Government would deal with the subject. He had told the hon. Member that they could not De expected to deal with the subject this session, and he would point out that the hon. Gentleman's own Party was in office for ten years and had left the question unsettled. It hardly lay with the hon. Member, therefore, to taunt him with giving such an answer in the first session of this Government.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: The ex-Home Secretary promised that he would introduce a Bill during the present session.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid that the Question ought to have been addressed to a Member of the Front Opposition Bench and not to him. In regard to the question as to Inebriate Homes he would gladly look into it, but it was hardly possible to do it now, though he hoped it would be brought forward at another opportunity. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who for ten years had been clamouring for an Aliens Bill, put off the passing of the Bill to the last month or two of the last session of their political existence, though he saw no reason from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen opposite why the Act should not have been passed years ago. But he confessed that since it had fallen to him to administer the Act he felt no surprise at the long delay in bringing the Bill forward. He could, indeed, quite understand the wish to pass it and to take the credit of it at the general election, and then to leave to their political opponents the difficulty, and possibly the odium, of working it. His position, and the position of those who acted with him, was perfectly well known with regard to the Act. He was not going to discuss the Act. They had disagreed with the main portion of it, agreeing with it only so far as it dealt with diseased people and criminals. They had considered that the subject was full of difficulties, that it would cause more trouble than it was worth, and

  155
  that there was not much chance of any Bill being worked effectively—in short, that there were many reasons against the proposals and hardly any in favour of them. What had been their experience? A good deal had been said in the debate about the Act, and he observed that it had not found many champions on the opposite Benches. Two hon. Gentlemen only who were protagonists and supporters of the Bill had spoken for it up to the present time, while other speakers had denounced it in no measured terms. He now occupied the unhappy position of knowing that whatever he did or said on the subject of the administration of the Act would draw fire upon him from all quarters of the House. He was inclined to demur to the statement that the regulations were not clear. He did not draw up the regulations, but he would undertake to say that very great care and pains were taken in the Home Office to make them as effective as possible. If they failed he doubted whether it was the fault of the framers of the regulations; the real cause of the difficulty of devising regulations dealing with this matter which would work smoothly in all quarters ought probably to be sought in the Act itself. In fairness to the officials who were endeavouring to work the Act at the various immigration ports, it should be allowed that the nature of the work which they had to perform exposed them to all sorts of difficulties. Certain people interested in passing immigrants into this country were putting the would-be immigrants up to various ways of evading the Act, and the immigration officials had to look very closely into individual cases. Difficulties arose owing to the language question. Immigrants came here, perhaps after dark, in bad weather, and the interpreter could not speak their particular language and, however carefully one tried to go into the details afterwards, it was almost impossible to ascertain what really had happened. In the case of Onix, the immigration officer did his duty as far as he was able, but it was also pretty clear that the intention of the third section was not carried out. He believed Onix did come under the designation of a political refugee, and ought to have been admitted. He did not blame the immigration officer.
  156
  That particular difficulty arose because very few Russians arrived at the port in question, and it was impossible to keep an interpreter at every port for every language. With a view to meeting this difficulty printed notices would be delivered to immigrants who, viva voce, could not be made to understand the interpreter. The Act had led to cases, sommetimes painful, sometimes ludicrous, sometimes exceedingly difficult. For instance, there was the case of thirteen Scandinavian sailors who arrived at a port which was not an immigration port and at which they were not allowed to land. They came to join their ships, and close by were the ships they had come to join. Inquiry was made as to what was to be done. If they had not been allowed to land the only course open to them would have been to return to the port from which they had come, then to have gone by sea to one of the Tyne ports, and finally reached their destination by train. He would not say whether the law was in any way broken in that case. Whether these men were allowed to land, or whether they joined their ships without landing he did not know; perhaps they did. It was not an immigration port, and over those ports the Secretary of State had no power. Then as to the American shipwrecked crew, he did not anticipate much difficulty in similar cases, as it had been arranged that the consular official concerned should be at once notified and leave given to the sailors to land. In the case of the French onion sellers, they were a most deserving class of men who had not come to compete in any British industry, but, on the contrary, to sell a desirable article of food to the poorer classes of this country; they were extremely well behaved and came and went without trouble to anybody. About seventeen arrived and were told they could not land owing to this Act. When that incident occurred he had been extremely anxious not to give unnecessary trouble to our neighbours, and the Consuls had been instructed to make known the provisions of the Act to these men, so that they might take advantage of the many loopholes—he would not call them loopholes, as it was perhaps an invidious term—the many opportunities which the

  157
  Act graciously allowed to these and other cases so that people might take their own measures to come into this country without in any way being inconvenienced. Then there was the case of the deaf and dumb man who, suspected of being a criminal alien, was brought before the magistrate, but as he was both deaf and dumb it was impossible to prove that he was either a criminal or an alien, and, as no one could discover his country or origin, there was nothing to be done but to discharge him. One painful case which had occurred was that of an idiot girl of nine years old who was rejected and sent back alone. [An HON. MEMBER: So she ought to have been.] He disagreed with the hon. Member. The Act ought to be made so elastic that full discrimination might be exercised in these cases and the fame of this country for generous treatment of these and other cases maintained. In that case the girl came back to this country a day or two afterwards as a first class passenger—[An HON. MEMBER: The same as the criminals]—and was in this country now. A good deal of inventiveness was being exercised in regard to these cases, but any case brought to his knowledge in which an immigration officer or board was charged with doing anything improper would be carefully inquired into as far as possible. Already there had been several cases referred to which on the face of them were of great hardship, but he was bound to say that in many instances there had been up to the present no corroboration, though the persons might be genuine refugees. He wished to remind hon. Members that his powers were extremely limited under the Act. For example, hon. Members had dealt with the word "proves" in Section 3. The onus of proof under that section was entirely on the immigrant. He had been asked whether it would not be possible to sift the men applying on religious or political grounds or because of persecution from those who were not. That really rested entirely with the Immigration Boards. If the Secretary of State were asked whether or no a particular act constituted an offence of a political character he could give his opinion, but
  158
  the Immigration Board was the sovereign authority so far as its own acts were concerned. It was quite true that in the appointment of a board the Secretary of State for the Home Department might have a good deal to say, and it was quite possible that he had the power of getting rid of a board and appointing a new one; but so far as the actions of the board under the Act were concerned, the Secretary of State had no authority to interfere at all. He had been asked whether there had not been many illegal actions by the Immigration Boards. He was quite sure that the Immigration Boards were trying to do their duty as well as they possibly could. They were men of character and intelligence who understood the Act, and were acting in accordance with its provisions; but even if they acted with the utmost strictness within their powers, that did not prevent numberless extremely hard cases arising. From the very nature of the case they must arise whatever regulations were made. The hon. Member for Burnley had asked whether it would not be possible to add a representative of the working classes to the boards. As he had already said, the number on the Immigration Board was limited to three, but he understood that there was a considerable number of workmen's representatives among those from whom the boards were chosen. He would make, however, further inquiry into the question, and if he were satisfied that anything could be done to improve the administration of the Act in that respect he would try to carry it into effect. He recognised that a serious responsibility rested upon himself in regard to this Act. To start the administration of an Act, to the greater part of which one was opposed in Parliament, was no easy matter. And, having regard to the fact that a great deal of the opposition to the Act was based on the belief that it would be very difficult to administer, to prevent its provisions being evaded, and to prevent them in some respects being made ridiculous, it was a matter of some concern to him that he should not lay himself open to the charge of justifying previous opinions by allowing matters to happen which the strict administration of

  159
  the Act would not allow. That was the position. For his own part he had to recognise that the Act was the law of the land, and he should endeavour to get as much good as he could out of it. So far as the criminal side of the Act was concerned he thought there was reason for satisfaction. Up to the present he did not know of any serious difficulty that had arisen. They had already rid the country of many notorious pests, and he did not anticipate that there would be much difficulty or much difference of opinion with regard to that side of the question. He should endeavour, so far as he could, honestly to do justice to the Act, and above all to support officers who were conscientiously doing their best in the interests of the Act. On the other hand, he recognised the proud position this country had occupied for a great number of years in opening her gates to the distressed people of the world. He should endeavour to further the Act as far as possible according to the intention expressed by Parliament when the particular provisions to which he had alluded were put in the third section of the Act. He would carefully consider any suggestions which might be made. He was collecting information from the Immigration Boards, but it was too early to present any information worth basing any serious argument upon. He would consider in what way he could avoid the painful cases which had occurred and which were likely to occur under such regulations. He had already stated that there were one or two ways in which he thought he could produce improvements in the working of the Act—first, by publishing at the immigration ports notices in every language likely to be used by immigrants; and, secondly, in regard to the sittings of the boards in camera. He thought these were disadvantages accruing from the present practice. So long as the Immigration Boards sat in camera every kind of story as to the doings of the boards and the reasons for their actions would get abroad, and all sorts of appeals would be made in this House for inquiry, and the Department would be in perpetual communication with hon. Gentlemen in order to explain away stories which had got about for the simple reason that the public had not an oppor-
  160
  tunity of hearing or seeing what went on within the walls of the court. He should consider that, and he thought at the present moment, so far as he was advised, it would be desirable that the Press should be admitted. He would like to take the opinion of the Immigration Boards to ascertain what they had to say on the matter, but he could see no reason why the Press should not be admitted. He thought the maintenance of this seclusion would do more harm than good. He had mentioned three points in which he thought improvement might be made. He could only say that he should anxiously watch the operation of the Act, knowing, at any rate, that if he failed to do his duty in the spirit which operated on both sides of the House on the formation of the Act he would hear of it in this House; consequently, there was every reason why he should keep up to the mark. The Act threw a new responsibility upon the Home Office; he did not deny that it was a most distracting one, for it occupied part of one's attention every day. It was a new burden—a burden which had to be borne as well as possible, but he could not forget that the people of this country expected that they should not go back on old traditions, and that while they had a right, or claimed a right, to deal with certain classes of immigrants yet, subject to the law of the land, they ought to do all they could to maintain at the highest point the traditions of this country.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman and his staff at the Home Office would do their best to see that the Act was administered according to the intention of Parliament, and with as little harshness as possible, and without detracting from the intentions of Parliament. As to his taunt regarding the late period of the late Parliament's existence at which the Act was passed, he would remind the House that the measure was the outcome of a Royal Commission, and that if the first Bill, introduced shortly after that Commission had reported, had been allowed to pass, the initial difficulties of administration would not have been so soon transferred to the

  161
  right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman complained that there did not appear to be any champions of the Bill on the Opposition side of the House. They had, however, to obey the Chairman's ruling, and he somewhat regretted that some hon. Members opposite had managed to evade the ruling of the Chair—["No, no!"]—and had managed to get in, at all events, a good many observations which—
  MR. TREVELYANasked if the right hon. Gentleman was justified in reflecting upon the ruling of the Chair.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was reflecting upon the Chair.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he was not reflecting in the least upon the Chairman's ruling. Almost in every debate upon this question there had always been an acerbity introduced which was to be regretted in discussions in this House. The only point which they had to consider to-day was the administration of the Act. The hon. Member who spoke first based his whole case upon the assumption that the Immigration Boards were showing a prejudice against the political refugee. He accepted the view that the intention of Parliament was to prevent injustice to the political refugee, and the question at issue was whether, in the administration of the Act, the political refugee was treated with any unfairness. There had been cases brought forward by hon. Members who thought they illustrated injustice, and who cited them as examples of the exclusion of persons who were fleeing from persecution. But it had been admitted by the right hon. Gentleman that there was not sufficient evidence to condemn the Immigration Boards, and he would repeat the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman that they should wait a longer time before condemning those boards or the rules or the procedure under the rules. So far as he was concerned he took the responsibility for the work done in connection with the framing of the rules whilst he was in office. He did not remember whether these rules were absolutely com-
  162
  pleted when he left office; but he, of course, took the entire responsibility for the work of his Department up to that time, and he knew that the rules were framed without any desire to strain the Act one way or another beyond the strict intentions of Parliament. If there was found to be any possibility of injustice under these rules the right hon. Gentleman would no doubt take the same course for correcting that tendency that he himself would have taken if still in his place. He had carried out his assurances to the House with regard to the constitution of the Immigration Boards, and had put a large number of working men on the panels.
  MR. CREMERYes, on the panels, but not on the boards.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid that by placing working men on the panels it was thought that they would be placed on the boards. With regard to the Channel service, no grievance had been brought to his knowledge officially or privately; he thought the Act had been working with smoothness, and the reference to the hon. Member for Accrington and to Mr. Bowles showed that there was no partiality. He had seen the Act administered in several ports, and, considering the very great difficulties which surrounded the putting into operation of all new Acts, he thought it had worked with very considerable smoothness. They were quite as prepared to put these searching questions to men of the class referred to by the hon. Member for Accrington as to men coming from the borders of Russia.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEasked the right hon. Gentleman, as he had referred to his knowledge of the Channel service in a private capacity, whether the lines he referred to were exempted under the Act.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAScould not say without reference, but would let the right hon. Baronet know. He could not tell what regulations had been made since the Home Secretary had announced I his intention of inquiring carefully into

  163
  the question as to the admission of the Press to the meetings of the Immigration Boards. It should be remembered that these meetings were not courts of law. The boards met chiefly for administrative purposes. The point was raised when the measure was under discussion in Parliament. He thought the authority itself should be left to consider the question of admitting the Press; but so far as he was concerned, if the right hon. Gentleman found it desirable to make an Order from headquarters on the subject he had no doubt he would do so from the best possible motives, and he would not take exception to his action.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid he had omitted to state that the possibility of appointing local advisory committees to help the immigration boards in ascertaining accurately the facts concerning aliens was being considered.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid he wished to direct the attention of the House to the sufferings of dumb animals. He had considerable hesitation in again bringing this matter before the House, but not because he was in the least afraid that they would refuse to listen to him. He had always found the House generous in listening to the remarks he had to make on this subject. Nor were his feelings blunted by what he had heard in previous sessions from opponents on these benches. He was just as anxious now for the welfare of dumb animals as he was when he first entered the House. The reason why he was diffident in bringing the matter forward was that he was anxious not to spoil the cause he had so much at heart by making any over statement. He knew that there was no subject brought before the House from time to time that had suffered so much from over statement. He did not wish to accuse the inspectors under the Act or the medical profession of want of humanity. On the contrary, he looked upon the medical profession as the noblest profession in the world; and he was ready to acknowledge that if they asked for experiments on living animals it was because they believed that by them they could palliate human
  164
  suffering. His argument was that the medical profession were liable to look upon experiments on living animals as an easier method of obtaining knowledge than research into science. He maintained that the discovery of the X-rays and of radium had done more to palliate human suffering and to help the medical profession than any number of experiments on living animals. One felt strongly on a subject like this by reading of the awful suffering inflicted on animals, and in the discussion of it. there might be a tendency towards over-statement. He must say that no member of the English medical profession had ever been guilty of the ghastly and hideous cruelties which one read of as practised in other countries. Anti-vivisectionists had always been accused of over-stating their case; but there had been as much over-statement on the medical side. Years ago medical men said that science could not possibly be conducted unless they had a free hand to make experiments on live animals. Public opinion, however, became strong against vivisection. It was led by men who, no doubt, made over-statements, but who were so horrified at the cruelties which might be committed on dumb animals that eventually even the officials gave way. It took a great deal to make an impression on officials, even on the Minister of Education. Thereafter the Home Office consented to pass rules and regulations under which the experiments were conducted. With fuller information, he asked the Home Secretary to go further and exclude dogs altogether from the regulations. Dogs had a higher nervous organisation than other animals. He would say nothing about guinea-pigs and mice; but he did plead for the dogs. If the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to exclude dogs from the operation of the Act, he asked him, in view of all that had taken place since the original Royal Commission sat, and in view of all the evidence adducible in this country and in various parts of the United States, to appoint a Committee, or an impartial Commission which should consider the evidence on both sides—the evidence of faddists like himself or the hon. Member for Edinburgh and St Andrew's Universities, and to make recommendations to the House.
  MR. TOMKINSONsaid he wished to thank the hon and gallant Gentleman for having initiated this discussion. It as an undoubted fact that experiments on living animals had increased enormously in late years. The large majority of these operations, it was true, were slight, such as hypodermic injections, but there was an increasing uneasy feeling that they resulted in a vast amount of cruelty. Naturally the greatest attention was paid to the experiments made on man's best friend amongst animals, the dog; but he hoped that that was not to be taken as an implication that other animals were outside consideration. The law stated that certain experiments should not be conducted unless there was a special permit by the Home Secretary. In many cases the law took away with one hand what it gave with the other. They knew perfectly well that the excuse that the animals were put under anæsthetics and were not sensible to the operation did not hold water. A dog must be made so insensible by chloroform that it would die, or else was very sensible. Curare was now very extensively used to take away vocal power, but it left the poor animal not insensible, and he was satisfied that great cruelty was often inflicted. In the Physiological Journal, which sold at 8s.—a prohibitory price to the public, and published so many months after the operations had taken place as to put them beyond the statute of limitations in which prosecutions were allowed—they would find it admitted that operations of the most awful kind were not infrequently performed upon animals. He remembered reading of operations performed on cats which, it was stated, no dog could survive. His own feeling was that they had no right to exploit the animal creation for their own purposes. He should like to see experiments on living animals absolutely prohibited; but he supposed they must be content with asking the House to appoint a small Committee to inquire into the working of this law and report.
  SIR JOHN TUKEsaid he wished to congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman who raised this question
  166
  on the moderation which he had exhibited in the expression of his views. He declared his conviction that there had been no abuse of the practice of vivisection. He knew that the Act, founded on the Royal Commission's Report, was carried out by honourable and upright gentlemen, and that physiologists and pathologists had no fear of any investigation that might be made. He admitted, although he held the opposite view, that there was a conviction on the part of a small minority that vivisection was cruel and unnecessary, and therefore for that reason he hoped there would be an inquiry. In almost all great communities for the purposes of public health such experiments were carried out in order to produce improvement of treatment. Thousands and thousands of these operations were carried out for the good of the human race, for the purpose of investigating such diseases as diphtheria, and the discovery of antidotes for such diseases as tetanus, hydrophobia, and others. Out of 32,000 experiments carried out last year 30,000 were performed mainly for the good of the human race,
  THE CHAIRMAN: This debate ought to be confined to the question of the administration of the Home Office in regard to this subject. It seems to be degenerating into a debate on vivisection, which is not in order.
  SIR JOHN TUKEapologised and said that what he wished to assert was that the way in which this Act was carried out by the inspectors was thorough and complete. Misconceptions had arisen in the public mind which he was anxious to get discredited and therefore he wished the Home Secretary to appoint a Commission. It was manifestly impossible to fight out the question on the floor of this House; it must be investigated before some responsible authority.
  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid he entirely sympathised with the right hon. and gallant Member for the Epping Division, but did not think he could at the present moment usefully add anything to what he had said. He desired, however, to call attention to another subject.
  MR. H. J. TENNANTrose to a point of order. A motion for reduction was now before the Committee and if another subject was to be discussed he would ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERinquired if the withdrawal would preclude further discussion on the Home Office Vote.
  THE CHAIRMAN: No; that will not preclude any further discussion on any other subject.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CREMERsaid he wanted it to be quite clear whether, if the hon. Member withdrew his Motion, should they be precluded from any further discussion on the Aliens Bill.
  THE CHAIRMAN: If another reduction is moved to the Home Office Vote before a reduction is moved on a later item the Aliens Bill can still be discussed.
  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid the Motion for reduction which he had placed upon the Paper had reference to the Criminal Department of the Home Office; that was the Department which considered petitions from convicted persons. In England, unlike any other civilised country, there was no Court of Criminal Appeal, and a person convicted, however unjustly, had therefore no other remedy except to resort to the clemency of the Crown; he had to ask to be pardoned for an offence he had not committed. That was an utterly preposterous and ridiculous condition of things, but so long as it remained law they had to make the best of it. The Committee of Inquiry into the case of the unfortunate Mr. Beck found that the machinery for the investigation of these petitions was sadly deficient, and recommended that the legal element on the staff should be strengthened. The late Home Secretary denied that his staff required to be strengthened at all, and refused to carry out the recommendations of the Committee, His present object was to show that the machinery at
  168
  the Home Office was weak, and to prove to the right hon. Gentleman who now presided at the Home Office that it was important to take steps to carry out that recommendation. It appeared from the Report of the Committee that not one of the fifteen petitions which Mr. Beck sent up during the five years he was incarcerated was ever brought to the notice of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. This seemed to him to raise an important constitutional question. The Secretary of State was entrusted with the highly responsible duty of advising the Crown in the exercise of its clemency, and it was a most important question from a constitutional point of view that we had certain officials at the Home Office who took it upon themselves absolutely to prevent petitions from convicted persons coming to the knowledge of the Secretary of State. According to the Report of the Committee the case did not rest there. It appeared that at all events the bulk of these fifteen petitions never reached even the Permanent Under Secretary of State. That gentleman in his evidence frankly stated that his subordinates were allowed to exercise a discretion with regard to the cases which they thought it necessary to bring to his notice. Therefore it was obvious that unless these subordinates were trained and qualified men the most gross miscarriages of justice might remain absolutely without remedy. He did not propose to go through the details of the Beck case; it was an old case and a most painful one. Nor did he desire to go into the details of the illustrations which the Committee gave as to the want of grasp of the legal principle and the real question concerned in that case displayed by the Home Office clerks in the minutes they wrote upon the papers. But it was perfectly clear that so long as this system prevailed, under which there was no security that any particular case would come, he would not say to the right hon. Gentleman's notice, but even to the notice of the Permanent Under-Secretary, it was absolutely essential that they should have among the subordinate officials of the Home Office gentlemen who were capable, first of all, of seizing the crucial points of a complicated case, and then, having seized them, of putting them into a proper memorandum for the consideration of

  169
  the Secretary of State. The late Secretary of State for the Home Department declined to carry out the recommendation of the Committee on the ground that he could refer legal questions to the Law Officers of the Crown. That reply showed that the right hon. Gentleman had missed the real point of the criticism of the Committee, because it assumed that the crucial points of the case had been extracted and brought to his knowledge, whereas what the Committee complained of was that the subordinate officials of the Home Office had not those qualifications which enabled them to seize the crucial points and embody them in a memorandum. In the debates which took place on this question in the late Parliament the present Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed the opinion that the legal element of the staff at the Home Office required to be strengthened. He hoped therefore the present Secretary of State would see his way to carry out the recommendations of the Committee. The Beck case had excited a very strong feeling in the country, and the evidence taken before the Committee showed that there was a want of adequate legal training in the subordinate officials of the Home Office, upon whom great responsibility was thrown.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he regretted what seemed to be the unsympathetic reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State with regard to the question of the inspection of uninspected laundries, and he desired to make one suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman by which, quite apart from any legislation, he thought a great deal might be done in the direction of inspection. They were all quite aware of the fact that there were a great number of places where a trade was carried on for profit which were not inspected by the factory inspectors, in respect to which a great deal could be done without legislation. He desired to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to what had been done in a very recent period by the Bishop of London. His Lordship invited all persons over whom he had any authority who were interested in any of these institutions where work was being carried on without inspection to consider this matter and to report
  170
  to him as to what action they could take. He warned them that public opinion would not continue to tolerate the carrying on of this work without inspection, and suggested that they should bring their institutions voluntarily under the control of the Home Office. Having read of the horrors which took place in some of these places in regard to which there was no inspection, he (Mr. Arnold-Forster) would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should second the efforts of the Bishop of London. He believed that if an appeal of that kind were made they would have an answer from those responsible, and in that way they would know the magnitude of the evil, and what were the institutions which thought it necessary, for reasons which appeared to them good and to him bad, to withdraw from the supervision of the law.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid he should be very glad to look into the matter referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, and see if anything could be done. Though they could not do everything at once, he would look into the matter without delay. With regard to the question raised by his hon. and gallant friend, he must point out that, of course, he had to administer the Act relating to vivisection—perhaps one of the most disagreeable duties he had to perform—and all he could say was that so far as the administration of that Act was concerned he had taken as much care as possible. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked whether dogs could not be excluded from vivisection, but he did not think that was possible without legislation. The hon. Member for Edinburgh and St. Andrews Universities asked whether a Committee or Commission could be appointed to inquire into the question. That was a matter to which he should certainly give his attention, because it was now nearly thirty years since the last inquiry was held on the subject, and he would consider whether it was desirable to hold another inquiry. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green raised a very important question with regard to the legal training of officials at the Home Office. With all respect to the gentlemen who composed the Commission of Inquiry into the Beck case, he ventured

  171
  to disagree with some of their conclusions. He did not agree that the Home Office was inefficient in legal training, nor did he think, with all respect to the legal profession, that that was precisely what was wanted. They certainly wanted very high qualities, but he believed that those qualities were got by service in the Home Office, and in that respect he could not speak too highly of the work that was done daily by the subordinate staff of the Home Office. He quite agreed that in the case referred to a mistake was made, but mistakes were made by other people: even in the case of the most eminent judges they could have no guarantee against mistakes. What was wanted was an adequate staff of trained men. They had trained men, but he thought that the staff wanted strengthening, and he had already made a proposal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the point. With regard to the question of a court of criminal appeal, that of course must be considered in relation to the question of Home Office administration, and vice versa; but the whole matter was now under consideration.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon had asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to ascertain which conventual laundries were willing to have inspection and which not. That was a matter he would leave to the right hon. Gentleman in consultation with those who controlled those institutions. He only wished to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, who, he regretted, was not now in his place, in making this recommendation spoke of the horrors that occurred in certain establishments. Knowing the opinions and the traditions of the right hon. Gentleman, he thought he could pretty well understand what he meant. He wished the right hon. Gentleman had spoken a little more frankly, and he would have been able to say in reply that anybody who brought a charge of that kind against the devoted women who managed these laundries in the religion to which he belonged was saying something which was not only contrary to the truth but to decency and Christian feeling.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he ventured to ask
  172
  Question as to the conditions under which cab drivers' licences were given and taken away, and also a Question as to the fee charged for such licences. They all knew that the work of a cabman was not becoming easier day by day, and that therefore any new charge placed upon his calling was a very serious burden upon his weekly budget. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman had withheld the extra 2s. 6d, which was more or less the fee of the Home Office, but there still remained a fee of 7s. 6d. for the cabman to pay, which was far too high. The time had come for these fees to be reduced, and nothing more than a mere nominal fee for registration made.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  SUPPLY [1ST ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham), in the Chair.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1906–7 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £21,410,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907, viz.:—

  CIVIL SERVICES.
  CLASS II.

  UNITED KINGDOM AND ENGLAND

  £

  Home Office

  66,000

  CLASS V.

  Diplomatic and Consular Services

  250,000

  CLASS II.

  UNITED KINGDOM AND ENGLAND.

  Local Government Board

  86,000

  MR. BOLANDsaid the morning sitting had been devoted to the discussion of Some Office questions, but he desired for a few moments to draw attention to the second part of the Paper, which dealt with the diplomatic and Consular services. He desired to-night to deal only with the Consular Services, and that from an Irish point of view, it being his contention that the Consular services could and should be made of very great service to the people of Ireland. With the exception of two the Consular Reports were absolutely useless to the people of Ireland. In the Estimates presented there was an increase of £6,000 put down to cover Consular services, which included an item of £2,420 for office expenses and fee allowances. He recognised that the last Government mot this demand to a slight extent. It arranged that the Reports issued this year were to contain a special reference to the existence or non-existence of an Irish trade. But that only touched the fringe of the question. There was nothing of a permanent improvement in this, and unless the right steps were taken, the year 1907 and succeeding years would find the Consular Reports as useless to Irish traders as they had been in the past. They would, he believed, be read this year because of the temporary improvement to which he had alluded. Why were they useless? They were useless because, with the exception of the Boston and Philadelphia Reports, no separate statistics were given of Irish trade. What advantage was it to them in Ireland to read that 231,202 tons of cement were sent to the United Kingdom from Belgium, or that Belgium took 8,120 horses from the United Kingdom. They wished to know what the Irish trade in these two articles was. If such information were given the Reports would become of some value. And let the Committee remember that this same Report from which he quoted did give separate statistics, as regarded not only Australia, Canada and India, but also the Straits Settlements. It was not because of the volume of the trade that a separate table was given to the Straits Settlement, as a mere glance at the tables would prove. Let them take, on the other hand, the Boston Report, dated August 1905. It was. as regards the scheme of statistics, a model on which he would advise the right hon.

  177
  Gentleman the Secretary of State to instruct his Consuls to found their Reports. Not only were the British Colonies in that Report separately treated, but Ireland's figures were kept distinct from England; for example, one read that 82,549 pairs of boots and shoes were sent from Boston to Ireland. That information was of some use to them. They were endeavouring to promote their own industries. What possible advantage could they in Ireland have gained from the bald statement that 670,000 pairs of boots and shoes went to the United Kingdom. Again, to take a somewhat unexpected item—£4,553 worth of ginger ale or ginger beer was imported into Boston from Ireland; and the item—only £1,779 worth of salted mackerel—made them in Ireland ask why this small amount. Enough had been said as to this one Report. The only Reports from which Ireland got an idea as to how she stood, commercially speaking, were from Boston and Philadelphia. He did not propose to allude specifically to other Reports on this point of deficiency, but he would just quote from the Report from Southern Italy issued a few weeks ago. It was the first published that contained a paragraph about Irish goods, and the paragraph concluded—
  "As the custom house does not differentiate between imports from Ireland, but mentions only imports from the United Kingdom, absolutely correct statistics are not available."
  That would probably also be the tenour of the reply from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—
  "It does not rest with us. It is the foreign Governments which do not provide the facilities."
  If that were so it was the duty of the Government to make representations to those Governments, requesting them to have the distinction between Irish and English imports recognised at the various custom houses. If it was found possible at Boston, why should it not be possible at Naples? At any rate it was the duty of the Government to try. They must remember too that by their union they had undertaken to do for Ireland what she would do for herself. Indeed some people in England thought that the Government could do it better than Ireland herself could. He would ask them to remember that there were old ties, not only of friendship, but of a commercial nature, between many of these foreign countriesand Ireland—the Low Countries,
  178
  France and Spain, for example. There was a strong industrial revival at work in Ireland. It was already seeking to extend its trade with foreign countries. Ireland therefore was entitled to demand that she should not be deprived of the information that was vital to her, because it was easier for the Government officials, if they were permitted, to swamp her under that curious phrase, "the United Kingdom." When he first looked at the trade and navigation monthly reports, ho got a gleam of hope because he saw the heading "British and Irish Produce," but on examination it was evident that this heading was adopted because they wanted some adjective. "United Kingdom Produce" would not be so grammatical, and the word "Irish" merely appeared as a heading. There was not a word or a figure to justify its inclusion. In Ireland they were prepared to second the efforts of the Government and to do away, as far as they could, with the objections which foreign countries might raise on this sort of difficulty. They intended to make use of the Trade Marks Act when it came into operation on April 1st. Indeed, the arrangements for the registration of an Irish national trade mark were now well advanced. It was their hope, and he believed that that hope would be justified, that every piece of lace that left Kerry or Connemara, every package of genuine butter, and every piece of agricultural machinery would have that Irish trade mark upon it. That in itself would render it easy for the customs houses abroad to make the distinction between Irish and English goods a test of quality and excellence as well as of origin. It would not suffice for the total exports to be checked as they left the Irish ports. They had not at present a sufficient amount of trade to maintain a direct shipping service with foreign countries, although within the last two years a line between Tréport and Dublin had been maintained. Irish goods must in the majority of cases go to the Continent viâ England. They wanted to know how Irish goods were distributed, and the Consular Reports, as far as he knew, were the only means to hand for obtaining that information. This Government, he should judge from the result of the General Election and certain passages in the King's Speech, would not be opposed to statistics. He had indicated one improvement which would be of real

  179
  use. It would be complementary to that other information they required as regards the trade between Ireland and England. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education had agitated for that for years past. The Irish Department of Agriculture had now joined in making that demand, as a reference to its quarterly journal would show. Ireland had need of these statistics, and England should not oppose obstacles in the way of their acquisition. In conclusion he would say just a word generally about the Consular Service. He recognised that at busy ports there were many things to be attended to, the entry and clearing of vessels, etc., and that a Consul's time was often fully occupied during those very hours when he could best acquire the information about Irish and English trade. Other people's offices closed as well as his, and he (Mr. Boland) would urge that this difficulty should be taken into account when the service was being overhauled, as he trusted it would be. The Reports were capable of being made extremely valuable to Ireland, and he admitted that it was for this purpose that he had thrown out these suggestions. Ireland had an economic sense, in spite of what critics might say, and although the great question of the land had to a certain extent overshadowed other vital matters, yet, as that was in process of being settled, the true value of these other matters was disclosing itself. They were determined to build themselves up industrially at home, and to win for Ireland a place in the world's commerce. He therefore claimed that as the Government had undertaken to promote their well-being, the Government must use their Consular Service for the good of Ireland as well as for the good of this country. He moved to reduce the Vote by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item, Class 5, Vote 1 (Diplomatic and Consular Services), be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Boland.)
  MR. PAULdesired to draw attention to a question which should be of interest to the community, and for the benefit of the Irish Members he suggested that it was of as much interest to Ireland as to any part of the United Kingdom. In this Vote on
  180
  Account there was set apart for Diplomatic and Consular Services £500,000. When Alexander visited Diogenes, and found him in his tub—which he neither rolled nor thumped—he asked if there was anything he could do for him. Diogenes replied, "Yes, you can get out of my light." If they asked the British manufacturer whether there was anything the Government could do for him, he would reply, "Yes, let me alone." That, probably, would be the rule. But there was the exception. The manufacturers wanted information. They did not need to be told what to do with it when they had it; they could find that out for themselves. They wanted the information in plain words and plain figures, and he suggested that the Consuls were the proper persons to give it. They did not expect much from great personages like ambassadors and ministers. Their business was high politics. What they had to do was to keep the peace, and counteract the influence of that foul excrescence on journalism—the Yellow Press—both at home and abroad. If any member of the Committee wanted to realise what a great diplomatist could do for his country in the way of asserting the first duty of England in doubtful and perilous times, he should read Sir A. Lyall's Life of Lord Dufferin, and see what that prince of diplomatists did with the Sultan of Turkey and the Ameer of Afghanistan. But what was a Consul? He was not an Imperial diplomatist. He was, or ought to be, a man of business, intimately familiar with all the commercial facts and surroundings of the place in which he resided. He had been told, and he quite believed it, that some Consuls had in former times been appointed on the theory that they could not have been created for nothing, and that there was nothing else for which they were fit. But he was sure his right hon. friend would not select that particular method of justifying the doctrine of final causes. He was aware that there were a few Consuls, he believed very few, who had diplomatic functions to discharge, but the rest of them, although they might occasionally have to interfere with a fellow-citizen who had drunk the wrong sort of wine, had not to sing "Rule Britannia," or to

  181
  uphold the honour of the flag, but to elicit and to give commercial information. As the Committee knew, trade no longer followed the flag, but followed the consumer. It had nothing to do with patriotic sentiment, it had nothing to do with national boundaries. He had the honour to represent a manufacturing constituency. His constituents made boots for the whole world. Everyone wanted boots. Whether he wanted them to kick his opponent or whether he wanted to run away from him, boots were equally handy. But different people did not at all times want the same kind of boots, and so what the manufacturing community desired to know was the particular kind of boot, or whatever it might be, which was wanted in a particular place at a particular time. He was well aware of the number and value of Consular Reports, but they took time to compose and to print. When they appeared they were most valuable as historical works, and as books of reference, but they did not always give the exact momentary information which was desired. It was as if the Government, meaning to confer a boon upon the travelling public, were to present them with a number of old Bradshaws, whose partial accuracy would be their most dangerous feature. After all, what they wanted to know was not what was going on three or four months ago, but what was going on now. He believed that to be the greatest benefit, the only benefit, which the Government could confer upon the trade of the country. In trade, if anywhere, knowledge was power. Our manufacturers had to learn not only what was most agreeable and most in accordance with their habits for them to make, but those of them who had business in foreign countries had to learn what it was that foreigners desired and what it was for which they were willing to pay. His right hon. friend might say that any arrangement of this kind for creating what he should like to see, an Intelligence Department in connection with the Foreign Office, to which our Consuls might regularly contribute, would cost a good deal of money, and they could no more get money out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer than they could get blood out of a stone. He was not quite sure, having cast his eye over
  182
  the Vote, which was diplomatic as well as consular, that they might not save in one part of it what they increased in another. Diplomatists were not overpaid. But he was not so sure that there might not be in some cases too many of them. He remembered being told in a foreign capital, a great many years ago—he would not give the slightest inkling of what the capital was, and he invited them to consider that the diplomatist to whom he alluded was dead and buried—that the Ambassador devoted most of his time to the game of bridge. He inquired of a British resident whether that charge was true. He said—
  "No, it is most unjust. I have never known his Excellency indifferent to the rival claims of poker."
  He was told that neither of these games could be played in solitude, and a slight reduction of the numbers in that particular Embassy or Legation—he would not say which it was—might have been productive of some benefit, not only to the diplomatic staff but even to their chief. If this reform did cost a little money it would be money well bestowed. His right hon. friend was peculiarly well qualified to carry out this task. He was acquainted with many kinds of business, he was a land owner, and he had been the chairman of a great railway and the director of a bank. He had, in Lord Fitzmaurice, a colleague of great ability and experience; he was himself not many years ago Under-Secretary in the office over which he now presided, and had special charge of the commercial department. His appointment to the great office which he now held was greeted with universal satisfaction by all parties and all classes in this country. His immediate predecessor, Lord Lansdowne, earned for himself a fine and just reputation by the treaty which he concluded with the Republic of France and the alliance which he established with the Empire of Japan. If the right hon. Gentleman took up this question and carried it out he would earn what he was sure he would value far more than any object of personal ambition, namely, the gratitude of the whole industrial community, and especially of the working classes, upon

  183
  whose self-sacrificing labours the commercial prosperity of every country must in the last resort depend.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLINsaid the Consular Reports put before the Committee contained very valuable information with regard to the trade coming to and from this country. It was the misfortune of Ireland in this matter to be mixed up with the interests of this country. Year in and year out the Irish Members had asked that their interests in this question should be separated, because they were absolutely swamped by the figures which came out in those Reports. The difficulties which had been mentioned were not very great. The trade from Ireland to the United States and to Canada was a direct trade. Some years ago a service was inaugurated between the ports of Canada and Ireland, and in order that that service might continue and with the object of promoting trade the Canadian Government gave a subsidy, and they had to-day a line of steamers provided that carried goods between Ireland and Canada. Those steamers now carried the bulk of the trade between the two countries, and the right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well what steamers and sailing vessels were trading direct between Ireland and the United States. There would not be very great difficulty in getting the statistics of that important trade, and the trade from Ireland to European ports certainly ought to be easily obtained. This was a matter of much importance to Ireland. How was it possible for them to know whether the trade of Ireland was increasing or decreasing if they were not furnished with these statistics. Every other country but Ireland could get such figures. They would be told that they were a part of the United Kingdom and were provided with statistics just in the same way as other parts of the Kingdom. He would point out that Ireland paid towards this service and why should she not share in the benefits this service might
  give? Every year difficulties had been put in the way which, he maintained, were only imaginary. If Ireland had the administration of these affairs in her own hands the matter could be arranged in a week.
  SIR C. HILLsaid the hon. Member for Northampton had struck a note which would appeal to anybody who had been connected with the Foreign Office or the Consular Service when he advocated more expenditure upon that service. If that were done the Government could give larger salaries to their Consuls, and then they could expect more work from them. It was extremely difficult for Consuls appointed to a service to acquire that complete knowledge of commercial affairs which was expected to be of use to experts in commercial undertakings. It was extremely difficult, for instance, for a man appointed to a place like Valparaiso to arrive there and make himself at once acquainted with all the details of importance to business firms at home. He would have to telegraph his information at great expense, and even then he doubted whether it would be news to the commercial merchants by the time they received it in this country. It was quite possible for merchants in England either to take in the commercial newspapers of the ports in which they were interested, or else have agents there who would telegraph the news in which they were interested. He did not think a Consular officer could be expected to supply information which would be immediately useful to any particular trade. He had had the honour of carrying out an inspection of the Consulates in the West Indies and on the Spanish Main. He had spent most of his life in the Foreign Office and had had the opportunity of knowing many of the Consuls in different parts of the world, and he had always found that our Consuls were most anxious to give the best possible information at the earliest possible moment. He knew too, from his experience at the Foreign Office, that if hon. Members addressed themselves to the heads of the Commercial Department or the Consular Department, they would readily receive any information which it was in the power of those officials to give.
  MR. NORMANsaid that, in reply to a Question recently put by him, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade alluded to new instructions that were to be despatched to members of the Consular Service. If the Secretary of State would say when

  185
  those instructions would be issued, and whether they would first be submitted to the House or a Committee of the Whole House, criticism on the Consular Service might usefully be deferred.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid he regretted the tone which had been adopted by the hon. Member for Northampton in his criticism of their Consuls and the Consular system. He did not know whether it was a reminiscence or a criticism of what he considered to be the system to-day, but he had said that some Consuls were appointed because there was nothing else for them to do.
  MR. PAUL: I was alluding to past days.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid his experience of Consuls and the Consular Service was that there was no department in which a larger amount of voluntary and unpaid labour was given to the State. The hon. Member opposite had stated that these Consuls had no diplomatic functions. That was, of course, absolutely true, but one of the chief functions of a Consul was to prevent and ward off diplomatic incidents, and were it not for the tact and judgment which, in his opinion, their Consuls showed all over the world the work of the Foreign Office would be very much more serious than it was at the present moment. As regarded the criticism that the Consular Reports were not up to date, that held good a few years ago, but that criticism was no longer founded upon fact. The delay in the publication of these Reports was infinitesimal, and great credit was due to the printing department of the State and the editorial department of the Foreign Office for the promptness with which these excellent Reports were brought out. He had not, however, risen to make a defence of the Consular system, although he was quite ready to defend it in case it was seriously attacked. He wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question which might perhaps not be considered a fair one, but if the right hon. Gentleman told him that this was his opinion he would abide by
  186
  his decision. Two or three days ago the Foreign Secretary, in Answer to a Question put to him by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, stated that the Brussels Convention to which this country became a party in November 1903, could not come up for consideration by the Government until five years from that date. If he was correct, he understood that the moment for denouncing that treaty (if such a course was decided upon) would not arise until next year at the earliest. He knew that hon. Members opposite took a strong view about the Brussels Convention. The Convention might be good or bad, but at any rate the ancient fiction that it had raised the price of sugar had been, he imagined, long since abandoned. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh."] If that argument were still adhered to they would be equally justified in saying that owing to the Convention the price of sugar had now fallen to a very low average. In view of the fact that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and his colleagues would probably be in office when this Convention would come up for revision, and, in view of the fact that enormous interests were being created under the Convention in British Colonies, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider the propriety of giving the earliest possible notice to the parties interested if it was the intention of the Government to denounce the Convention.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): A certain number of Questions have accumulated already, and perhaps I had better dispose of them at once. In Answer to the Question put to me by the noble Lord the Member for Chorley, I agree that, whenever a decision is come to as to what the policy of this country is to be in future in regard to the Sugar Convention, that decision should be announced as soon as possible. That is in the interests of the certainty of trade. But I must point out to the noble Lord that the Sugar Convention itself has, in my opinion, introduced an element of uncertainty. We are parties to that Convention at the present moment. As

  187
  parties to it we, the great consuming country, have rendered ourselves liable to be bound by the decision of the other members of the Convention, who are the producers; and at any moment, it seems to me the producers, forming the majority of the Convention, may so use their position and their preponderance on the Convention as to make it necessary for the consuming country to reconsider its position. That is an element of uncertainty which is inherent in the Convention itself; and, so long as we remain a party to the Convention, that element of uncertainty must remain. With regard to the future, it is clear that we cannot withdraw before 1908; and to do that it is necessary to give notice in September, 1907. Even if the Government gave notice to-day we could not withdraw before September 1908; and, therefore, the Government feel, and I think rightly feel, that a statement of their policy in regard to the Sugar Convention is not so pressing and urgent at the present moment as some other matters, seeing that whatever we were to decide now, no action could follow upon it before September 1908. That is how the matter stands at the present moment. With regard to the Consular service, the Foreign Office does from time to time issue instructions to the Consuls. It is not desirable, indeed, it would hamper the Foreign Office, that those instructions should be submitted to a Committee of that House before they are issued. The instructions I have in contemplation relate to matters of detail, and I do not think these matters of detail should be committed to a Committee of this House. On the other hand, if anybody either inside or outside the House has any suggestion to make with regard to matters of detail upon which they think that Consuls should be instructed I shall be very glad to receive those suggestions, but I do not think it is necessary that a Committee should be formed to review the whole question of instructions to Consuls.
  MR. NORMAN: I understood the Answer given to my Question by the Secretary to the Board of Trade did not refer merely to departmental details. My Question dealt with the whole question
  188
  of greater efficiency in the Consular service, and I understood that that matter was under consideration, and that other instructions dealing with various matters were being considered. I had no idea that they were merely departmental details.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have hardly the Question in my mind, but if it is a Question of the general efficiency of Consuls, we come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Northampton. I think that before the House goes into the question whether we should have a Committee to consider the whole Consular service we ought to realise how much has been done by the Consular service; and I would suggest that a new Parliament should, at any rate, spend some time in studying the Consular Reports, and seeing how the service is managed before it rushes to the conclusion that it is in a condition of inefficiency. I think before the House appoints a Committee to overhaul a great branch of the public service it ought to be proved that that service is in such a condition that it is not being properly worked, and properly administered by the Department concerned. I welcome the maiden speech in this House of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury who speaks with knowledge on questions of this kind. The hon. Gentleman has spent many years in giving public service to the State inside the Foreign Office, and I trust that the information and knowledge which he has acquired as a public servant will be of benefit to the House. I fully admit that in past years there has been great ground for complaint in regard to the Consular service. I do not mean that individual Consular servants have not done their best, but I think that some years ago the whole method of appointment to the Consular service was unsatisfactory. A good deal has been done to remedy that state of things. The Consular service has now been turned into a regular service which must be entered by examination; and, instead of people being appointed without close reference to their qualifications, it is now a service which must be entered by examination like other services for which considerable initial qualifications are required before a young man

  189
  can enter. Although the right of making exceptions has been retained, the practice of appointing to an important Consular post people from outside the service altogether, has in recent years been largely discontinued. Our intention now is that the Consular service should only be entered by young men, after examination, who have special prima facie qualifications for the service, and that important posts should be filled up by men who have entered the public service by showing that they have the qualifications for it. That is a considerable change. Among the qualifications is not only the knowledge of languages, but the knowledge of British commercial law, of shipping law, of exchange, of contracts, of marine insurance, and so forth, and candidates will be considered specially qualified to compete who have a certain amount of legal or university training, and among other special qualifications will be that of having served for three years in a commercial house before entering the service. I think that ought to go long a way towards getting into the Consular service young men who have shown some inclination or aptitude for business; and, getting these men into the public service and keeping the higher posts for promotion, the House should feel that a considerable step has been taken towards securing that the Consular service will be composed not only of men of education and a knowledge of languages, but also a certain amount of business training, It is difficult to get what you call men of business in the same sense in which men of business are described, because you cannot allow the men to engage in trade, their whole time and energies must be devoted to the service of the State. You cannot well take out of business men who have already made a considerable start in business and put them into the Consular service for this reason. There are two classes of men in business—the successful and the unsuccessful—and if we were to apply to business houses and so forth to get men for the Consular service, the men we would get would be those who had not proved themselves most successful. I think our policy should be to attract men to the Consular service, and give them to understand that they must devote a certain amount of attention to business,
  190
  not necessarily with the view of entering business, but with the view of qualifying for appointments as Consuls. Now with regard to Consular reports I think these have been vastly improved in recent years. I fully admit that the improvement is partly the result of the debates in this House, and partly because the House of Commons has constantly called attention to the need of good Consular reports. In the old days the House was frequently finding fault with the Consular reports. I am told that nowadays, whereas it used to be said that the American Consular reports were much superior to our Consular reports, there have lately been signs in the United States of commending the British Consular reports as being in some ways superior to their own. Annual reports we must continue to have; I did not understand the hon. Member to suggest that the annual reports should be discontinued. I think they will always he a most valuable part of the Consul's work in providing information. The great movements of trade are not spasmodic and sudden movements; they are gradual movements, and they ought to be, and can only be shown satisfactorily in the annual reports. In fact the annual reports have pointed out from year to year the success in some countries abroad of German merchants as compared with British merchants, and they have pointed out the way in which German merchants—not in all cases, for I do not admit that German trade has been gaining more than British trade—have made more progress than British merchants. Now and then in some South American countries we find that German trade has made conspicuous progress, and we find from the annual reports how that has been done by giving special attention to the language of the country, or to the special needs of the country. I remember that some time ago I was told that German trade had progressed very much in certain South American Republics in a certain class of cotton goods. I asked a British manufacturer if that was so, and he replied,—
  "Yes, years ago, but now we have got the trade. A small demand grew up for certain goods. The Germans took advantage of that and adapted their machinery to the making of this particular class of goods. I could not

  191
  get the British manufacturers to adapt their machinery for this class of cotton goods, being what the people in that particular part of the world wanted."
  Presently the trade, which was at first small, became a very large trade, and British manufacturers having had their attention called to the fact—I daresay partly by the Consular reports—turned their attention to the matter and got a large share of the trade which they might have had in earlier years if they had turned their attention to it. In that way I think Consular reports may be of great service. No doubt there are also sudden and spasmodic movements of trade of which it is desirable that the manufacturer in this country should be able to take advantage. But there is a good deal published besides the annual Reports. There is the monthly report of the Board of Trade, and information is also given regarding tenders which are invited abroad. I think my hon. friend the Member for Northampton must realise that a Consul does not regard himself as restricted solely to the annual Report, and whenever information is obtained which should not wait for the annual Report it is given either to the Labour Gazette or sent to the Foreign Office and published at the time. But my hon. friend does not intend to draw up any general indictment against the Consular or diplomatic service, and, although he told one story at the expense of the diplomatic service, he also paid a great tribute to our representatives abroad and showed that he was not wanting in appreciation of their work. I admit that there have been shortcomings in past years, but on going back to the Foreign Office, after an absence of ten years, I find markedly that a considerable improvement has been made. That improvement is going on, and will go on, and I would say to the House frankly that we do regard it as the duty of Consulates abroad to be centres of information from which that information should be communicated in the most convenient and opportune manner.
  I now come to the particular point of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for South Kerry. First of all let me assure him that the improvement from the point of view of Ireland
  192
  —an improvement which was made a year or two ago at the request of himself and his friends—will certainly be continued. That improvement was to record in the Consuls' annual Reports, and to take special notice of the movements of Irish trade, to devote special paragraphs to Irish trade for the information of Ireland. That has only been done in the last two Reports, but it is a, general instruction to the Consuls, and I shall do my best to see that they continue to act upon it. But the hon. Member said quite rightly that the general instruction with regard to Ireland was of comparatively little value at the present time, because the Consuls abroad, though they may be instructed to give special information about Ireland, and may be anxious to do it, cannot get the information, because it is not available in the trade returns of foreign countries—that is to say, that Irish imports, and exports to Ireland, are lumped together under the heading, "United Kingdom," and that, therefore, the Consuls themselves, however much they may wish to do so, cannot extract the figures with reference to Irish trade. If that is so, we must get foreign countries to help us. We must ask them to keep their records of trade so as to show separately the statistics of Irish imports, and of exports to Ireland. I think the hon. Member said that only two places do so at the present time—Boston and Philadelphia. I can see no objection whatever to making the request to foreign countries. I will do my best, not only to make the request to foreign countries, but to make it as sympathetically as possible. Meanwhile I am willing to continue the instruction that Consuls should obtain information where-ever possible, but I do not see how they can do that completely. My only fear is, not that there will be any difficulty in making their request, but whether foreign countries may not make objections because it is putting extra trouble and expense on the custom house officers. I should like to be able to meet that objection. In Ireland there is a movement to take advantage of a recent Act in order to establish an Irish trade mark. I think if the hon. Member will let me wait until I can be assured that an Irish trade mark has been established,

  193
  or is on the point of being established, that would be an exceedingly good peg on which to hang the requests to foreign Governments. They might say, "It is all very well to ask us to do this, but why ask us to take extra trouble on your account?" If I could go to them and say that Ireland has established a special trade mark, I think the request would not seem unreasonable or trivial. That would show that the request is one in which we ourselves are taking an interest, while the fact of Ireland having such a trade mark would make it very easy for their custom house officers to keepseparate records of imports into those countries from Ireland. I should like to be able to put it in that way, and if it be the case that there is this movement I should certainly propose to take advantage of it in order to request foreign countries to keep the statistics in the way the hon. Member desires. He says that there is a certain amount of sentiment in this matter. If an Irish trade mark were established it would be a case of sentiment taking a practical form, and it would give us a certain right to ask other countries to help us to do what we are so anxious to do for ourselves, to point out that it would be an easy matter for them, and that it would cause little trouble and no extra expense. I think it is a reasonable request. Everyone who has been in touch with trade in recent years knows that increasing value is attached to statistics. In every large modern business, more and more is spent in keeping the statistics of business; and what is applicable to a modern house of business is applicable also to Ireland. In these days so much depends on checking the progress of foreign business by accurate figures, which give a standard of comparsion between one year and another. You want a standard, and unless you have a standard you cannot have comparisons, and you cannot know accurately whether you are going backward or forward. I sympathise with the desire of the hon. Member. The movement for developing the national industries of Ireland is a recent one, and it will be of great interest to see from year to year where it is progressing, and where it is falling off; in order that where there is improvement fresh capital and energy may be thrown into the business, and
  194
  where there is falling off, the reason may be discovered. The House as a whole I think ought to sympathise with any movement for industrial development in Ireland, because surely one of the most pathetic things in the relations between Great Britain and Ireland is the enormous growth of British trade as compared with the industrial development of Ireland. The least the House can do, if there is this movement, is to help and encourage it as far as possible. If these separate statistics can be obtained, I am sure they will be useful. I hope they will begin by making a record for Ireland, and that Ireland will use them to break the record as years go on. The request is most moderate and reasonable, and one with which the House ought to sympathise, and I will do my best to overcome any difficulties there may be.
  MR. BOLANDsaid that in consequence of the fair way in which the right hon. Gentleman had met the request he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. REESsaid the hon. Member for South Kerry had suggested as a reason why Consuls could not sufficiently differentiate the figures relating to Ireland was that they had not time to deal with the matter in detail. He had seen a great many British Consuls in different parts of the Empire, but he never heard that anyone was unable to deal with statistics because he was overworked. He thought criticisms of these efficient and obliging officers should proceed upon other lines. There was one matter which affected not only the interests of Ireland but the whole of the British Empire in relation to the performance of the duties of Consuls. He understood from the right hon. Gentleman that a severe linguistic test was exacted from Consuls. That might be so, but it was in that respect that our Consuls most fell short of what the country might expect. Nor was that their fault. They worked in remote localities and very often those who were most proficient in this respect were not promoted to other places because they spoke so exceedingly well the

  195
  language of the place where they then were. They were thus localised and became permanently associated with the country whose language they spoke so fluently. How few had a career before them like Sir William White, who rose to be the Ambassador in Turkey. By making such proficiency one of the chief grounds for preferment as much as in any other the right hon. Gentleman could improve the Consular Service. He knew how difficult it was to secure high efficiency by merely exacting a strict test in examination, for he had probably examined as many candidates in foreign languages as. any Member of the House. The reason why Consuls had not set to work, as a matter of course, to acquire an intimate acquaintance with the language of the country in which they were stationed was that there was no promotion in linguistic efficiency, it was not the road to promotion in the Consular Service.
  MR. FELLsaid he noticed that some of the subsidiary German states had resident Ministers. He took it that this was a relic of former days when those states had diplomatic relations with the world. Now that we had a Minister at Berlin it seemed to him that our Consuls in the smaller states were sacrificed to the resident Ministers. In Bavaria there was a resident Minister with a high salary, while there was a Consul at Munich with a trifling salary. He could not apportion the duties between those gentlemen, but he imagined that the duties of the Consul at Munich would be more important than those of the resident Minister. There was another direction in which our Consular Service was behindhand. In the whole of Siberia from Moscow along the Siberian railway there was not a single British Consul. There was now a large and increasing business with that country, though there was no one to whom British manufacturers or business men could make inquiry. With a language so difficult as the Russian it was almost impossible for an ordinary English firm to make any inquiry in regard to business in that. vast country with which in the future we would have great business relations. He hoped our business with that country would increase, but it
  196
  would be greatly prejudiced if we had not some Consuls there.
  MAJOR SEELYmoved a reduction of the Vote by £200 in order to call attention to the Convention with China of May 13th, 1904. Under Article 2 of that Convention our Consuls were obliged to co-operate with the Taotai of the district in the recruiting of coolies for service in the British Empire, and under Article 3 they were obliged to assist in providing emigration bureaus. In fact our Consular service in China was used to advertise the advantages of coolie emigration. He thought the vast majority of the House highly disapproved of their being used for such a purpose. There was very much stronger reason for action in this matter than in connection with the Brussels Convention. Even greater commercial interests were involved. The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies had warned the House that it was likely that this Convention would require amendment, and he thought that if it was necessary to abrogate it in view of changes of policy in regard to Chinese labour in South Africa a definite decision should be come to at an early date. He would not press the matter further that night. But his right hon. friend would forgive him when he said that there was an overwhelming impression that the members of the diplomatic and consular services had been used for the purpose of assisting the recruiting of coolies. He was sure that they would all be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman if they were informed what action the Government would take in regard to the matter.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman move the reduction of the vote by £200?
  MAJOR SEELY: I do.
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item, Class 5, Vote 1 (Diplomatic and Consular Services), be reduced by £200."—(Major Seely.)
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid he had not got a copy of the Convention of China

  197
  with him. He did make some inquiry orginally as to whether the Convention with China had anything to do with the Labour Ordinance in the Transvaal, and as to whether if the Convention with China was abrogated it would have any effect on the recruiting of Chinese labour, and he had been told that even if the Convention were abrogated the recruiting would go on and would be carried out by recruiters who were not Consuls at all. The question whether these recruiters were the servants of the employers of Chinese labour had nothing to do with the Foreign Office. If it should turn out that such abrogation of the Convention was a necessary step in carrying out their policy there would be no doubt of its being taken by the Government at the earliest possible moment.
  MR. W. REDMONDsaid that this question of the appointments to the Consular service was one in which he had taken a great interest, and he was sure that they had all listened with satisfaction to the promise made by the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary in answer to the statement put before the Committee by the hon. Member for South Kerry. Two years ago he had occasion to call attention to the whole system of appointments to the Consular service, and at that time he proved conclusively that it was wrong and on an unsound basis. He gave a list of the Consuls who had been appointed who had absolutely no qualification for the position either by commercial training or experience, and he was able to shew that a great number of them had been appointed simply as a reward for political services. What gave rise to the discussion two years ago was the disappearance from this House of a distinguished Member of the Tory Party—distinguished in many ways, but not in a commercial direction. That Gentleman had been appointed a Consul, as a reward for political services, but for a long time they could not discover where he was appointed to. He was sure that every hon. Member had listened with great satisfaction to the assurance that there was to be an entire change in the matter of these Consular appointments; and he would be greatly obliged if the right hon.
  198
  Gentleman the Foreign Secretary would tell the Committee when exactly this change was to come into operation. As he understood the right hon. Gentleman, these appointments would be made henceforth with a special view to the qualifications of the gentleman and after examination; and that in future appointments would not be made from the outside, but from those who had had experience in the service. He trusted that in future no Members of this House would be appointed as Consuls because they had been good Party men and had always voted straight.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid he ought to have stated when speaking before that the new regulations to which he had alluded were Departmental regulations which had been sanctioned by Lord Lansdowne in May, 1904. With regard to pledges for the future, there remained a discretion in any exceptional case for making an exceptional appointment. He could not give an absolute pledge with regard to them; but when they were made the hon. Member and the whole House, would have opportunities, of which no one knew better how to take advantage, of calling attention to them.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he wanted to know what was going to happen in regard to the case of Consuls, not British subjects, who had reached the limit of age involving a re-consideration of their appointment. He was aware of appointments being held at important centres of industry and ports in the kingdom of Italy by gentlemen who were not British subjects, or if they were, who did not possess qualifications for discharging the growing work in these particular Consulates. He asked the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary whether he had any scheme in his mind by which these gentlemen could be removed from their positions and Englishmen put into their places. These appointments should be given only to men who were able to perform their duties efficiently, and should not go on in a moribund condition as at present. There were two other items in the Vote to which he wished to refer. In the first place, hon Members who had been about the world must have

  199
  met some fellow-countrymen abroad who were in distress, and yet he found that the only amount allocated for the relief of distressed British subjects abroad was the sum of £100! Some hon. Members were eloquent the other day in stating that they were quite ready to tax the people of this country for taking upon themselves the burden of foreign idiots, yet only £100 was given to relieve distressed British subjects abroad ! There was an important item of £30,000 for special missions and services. He was not one who would say that any special or ornamental mission which it might be necessary for this country to send to any foreign potentate should not have adequate sums at their disposal to enable them to perform their duties; but why should this £30,000 be voted without a single syllable of explanation being made? That was surely very good evidence of the real intentions of the Government in regard to these funds. So long as they got the Vote through the House of Commons without a word of explanation they did not care. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary would give the Committee some details which would justify them in passing this Vote. They did not like to go to their constituents and say, "We do not know why this sum was voted or for what special services it was given." There was another item as to outfits. Did he understand rightly that the sum of £8,000 was for outfits for Ambassadors and Ministers on taking up their duties on new posts; or was the sum for outfits for any other purpose? Then there was an item "gratuities: £500." In the Chancelleries abroad there were men employed who were not only very faithful but ill paid. On them a great deal of responsibility rested because they had opportunities of gaining information which was in the possession of British Legations and Consulates. These men had no chance of pensions, as was the case in Germany, and by paying them so inadequately it was almost putting a premium on that form of discretion which very soon became treachery. The paltry sum of £500 given as gratuities to these men, was, in his judgment, a slur upon a most loyal class of servants of this country.
  AN HON. MEMBERsaid he wished to ask the Foreign Secretary whether, in view of qualifications required in the Consular service, sufficient remuneration would be given to attract good men.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that it would be impossible to have a general rise of remuneration in the Consular service without a considerable increase in Estimates. The Government were not this year proposing any considerable increase of expenditure on the Consular service. He thought it was undesirable in the interests of economy that proposals for a general increase of salaries involving a large addition to the Estimates should be made, provided it was found that the service could be efficiently conducted at the present rates. As to Consuls abroad who are not British subjects, he could say nothing about individual cases until he knew what they were; but he thought it would be most wrong to undertake, in answer to the hon. Gentleman opposite, to get rid of men who had been legitimately appointed to the public service, very likely by the recent Government.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he had referred to men who had reached the age limit.
  SIR E. GREYsaid that probably these men had also been appointed by the Conservative Government.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he was not referring to any question of Party politics, but to appointments made during the last twenty years.
  SIR E. GREYsaid he did not wish to say that these were wrong appointments. He did not know to what cases the hon. Gentleman referred. But even supposing a man was a subject of another country, if he had been once properly appointed by a British Government to his post, he ought not to be dismissed except on the ground that he had not performed his duties properly. With regard to future appointments, that was another matter as to which the Government had a free hand. With regard to the details of the items for special missions, he had not gone through

  201
  the Estimates as a whole before this evening, because he understood that they would not be taken up as a whole, but only on one or two special subjects. If the hon. Gentleman would ask him as to these matters of detail. either by way of Question or when the Vote was taken as a whole, he would do his best to give him the information he desired.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid he might be permitted to explain that he had raised this important question of diplomatic assistance for recruiting coolies in China under the impression that his right hon. friend had had due notice of it. He understood that the Government did not propose to continue the system, and if that were the case he would not persevere with his Amendment.
  SIR E. GREYremarked that all he could say was that he was not conscious of the Foreign Office having done anything in the matter at all. At any rate he had seen no sign of it. But whatever they did, either actively or passively, it must be done in consultation with the Colonial Office. All he could say was that he wanted to see the whole thing got rid of.
  MAJOR SEELYasked draw his Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. MORTONsaid he wished to call attention to a matter in connection with the Colonial Office and South Africa. On Thursday last he gave notice of a Question as to the treatment of General Botha in regard to the compensation offered him for the burning of his house during the late war. He got an Answer eventually to that Question in writing, but it was very unsatisfactory,
  202
  and that was his reason for calling attention to the matter now. It appeared that during the late war the property of General Botha on the Natal border was burned down, like that of nearly all the Boer generals. Now, it was understood that it was with a view to get rid of the results of these "methods of barbarism" that £3,000,000 were set aside to pay such claims as that of General Botha. The claim sent in by General Botha amounted to £15,000. This was reduced on the Government assessment to £7,000, and then he was offered a cheque for £800, which was endorsed with the legend "Receipt in full." General Botha refused to take £800, and he was now waiting to get something like justice from the British Government. He (Mr. Morton) had been told by the Secretary of State that he had not yet received the information he required upon this point, but he thought that he ought to have received it by this time. This was a matter of honour to the British Government, for they had promised to make good, so far as they could one of those "methods of barbarism" by settling these claims in some fair and honourable way. The Secretary of State said he did not understand that General Botha's claim had been treated differently from the claims of others who were entitled to share the £3,000,000 provided for ex-burghers. It appeared that a large number of other claims had been treated in the same way. He had been told that no action was proposed. The Government was bound to carry out the solemn promises of their predecessors. A promise was given that these claims should be made good, and was he to understand that the Government now coolly proposed to ignore this claim of General Botha? He was rather astonished that there was no one on the Treasury Bench that knew anything about this matter to give him an Answer. He gave notice early to-day, and somebody ought to have been present to answer his Question.

  203
  Right hon. Gentlemen were put in office by them, and they were paid by them, and they must understand plainly that when Questions were put to them, they should be there to answer them. On a Question like this there ought to be very strong grounds indeed for refusing to make good the claims to which he had referred. He begged to move that the salary of the Secretary of State for the Colonies be reduced by £100.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member that this is a Vote on Account, and that his Motion will only be in order if he moves to reduce the amount asked for the Colonial Office by £100.
  MR. MORTON: Then I will move to reduce the Colonial Office Vote by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item, Class 2, Vote 6 (Colonial Office), be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Morton.)
  MR. J. WARDsaid there was one question he should like to ask, which the remarks of the hon. Member for Sutherland had brought to his mind. If an answer was going to be given he should like to know whether the proportion of all the claims that had been paid in the Transvaal for damage during the war worked out at the same rate as in this particular claim? He understood that they had only paid £800 for over £15,000 damages. ["No, no."]
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): The Under-Secretary for the Colonies is indisposed and not able to be here. [Cries of "He was in the House of Lords."] I hope my hon. friend will postpone this Question until the Report stage of the Vote.
  MR. MORTONsaid he was quite willing to postpone the Question to the
  204
  Report stage, on the understanding the he had an undertaking from the Government that he would have an opportunity for bringing the Question up again. He asked leave to withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: If you go on like that you will soon be in the Government yourself.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid he desired to call attention to an item which appeared year after year, and which he did not remember had ever before been discussed since he had been a Member of this House. The item he alluded to was £20,000 for the Department of Woods and Forests. It seemed to him that this was a most important item and there was a great deal more involved than appeared at first sight, both as to the method of administration of the office and the sum received and paid into the Treasury. The Crown property was in the hands of two Commissioners. The total revenue of the Woods and Forests Commissioners was £620,000, of which there was only an actual expenditure of £150,000, leaving a payment into the Treasury of nearly half a million of money. So far as the Treasury was concerned the result might be considered eminently satisfactory, but the management of this propety was exceedingly costly, very unsatisfactory, and ought to be changed. There had been spent, for administering this office in London, £10,000, in Dublin £15,000, £3,000 in law expenses, £7,000 for surveyors' charges, £4,000 upon the administration of mines, making with repairs and other outgoings a total of £154,000. No less than £37,000 had been spent in administration pure and simple. That was far too great a proportion of expenses for administration for this Committee to

  205
  sanction. There was much unnecessary sale and resale and purchase of property between the various Government departments. On page 107 of the Report there was a sale to the Commissioner of Works of £245,000 worth of property, and a repurchase from the same Commissioner of £150,000 worth of property which involved a totally unnecessary expenditure upon law, conveyancing, surveyors' charges, and other numerous expenses connected with the transference of property. It was an absolutely unnecessary exchange of property, incurred and undertaken for no ostensible reason. It was a surrender of houses in one street in order to acquire property in an adjoining street. Then, there was the extraordinary acquisition of scattered properties all over the United Kingdom which were costly to purchase and to manage. The acquisition of scattered estates had been abandoned by private individuals, and it was time that it should be abandoned by the State. There was an unfortunate concentration of holdings. There were twenty-eight new leases this year dealing with 6,822 acres of land, giving an average of about 250 acres. What they ought to create was not large farms but small holdings. The policy of the Commissioners in the past had been, not to supply small holdings but to concentrate small holdings in large ones, without giving the people of this country an opportunity to get hold of Crown lands in small parcels. There were no less than 5,000 acres of Crown property unlet, and he ventured to assert this would not be the case if the land was offered in small holdings. He suggested that the property under the Department, extending to 120,000 acres, and including not only lands, but mines and quarries, ought to be cut up into separate departments, one dealing with mines and minerals, another with agricultural property, and a third
  206
  with woods and forests. Then there ought to be a systematic splitting up of great holdings into small holdings, and the whole income ought to be handed over to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, applied to the Sinking Fund, and capitalised for the benefit of the State. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £100.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That Item, Class 2, Vote 24, (Woods and Forests, etc., Office of), be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Charles Hobhouse.)
  MR. WINFREYhoped the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to give the Committee some information as to the disgraceful way in which the agricultural part of this office had been administered. It fell to him, as Chairman of the Lincolnshire Small Holdings Association, to apply for one of the Crown farms, and they were told that it would be detrimental to the estate to allow them to have the farm for small holdings, notwithstanding that the association had been running fifteen years and was perfectly sound financially, and that they undertook to take the farm at the same rent as the preceding tenant. Instead of being let to them, it was let to a farmer who had already one Crown farm which he was farming very badly. If the agricultural portion of the estate could be put under the management of the Board of Agriculture, they would, he thought, have a better state of things prevailing. The Crown had some very fine land in Lincolnshire and in parts of Cambridgeshire, and it ought be made useful for hundreds of small holding tenants. At present, however, the policy of the Woods and Forests Department, when a farm was to he let, was to let it to a large farmer who already had perhaps one or two farm

  207
  in his occupation. That was detrimental to the best interests of the country, and he ventured to hope that they would have some satisfactory answer from those in authority as to the better control of Crown land.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid he did not complain of the criticisms of his hon. friend, although he thought the word "disgraceful" was a little too strong under the circumstances, nor did he complain that he had not received notice of this Question. As however, he had not received any notice that the Question was going to be brought up, he hoped his hon. friend the Member for East Bristol would not complain if his Answer was not as full and complete as it might otherwise have been. The hon. Member had argued in favour of a system of small holdings being adopted upon Crown lands. He reminded his hon. friend the Member for East Bristol that the subject he had raised was to form a part of the inquiry by the Royal Commission on the Afforestation of Crown Lands and Coast Erosion. He had no doubt the recommendations of the Commission would be made in the sense his hon. friend wished. He would see what could be done to prevent any unnecessary overlapping in regard to the duties of the Department. He took exception to the epithet "disgraceful" used by the hon. Member for Norfolk, but must leave his predecessor in that office to speak for the management for which he had been responsible. The hon. Member went on to advise that agricultural land under the control of the Woods and Forests Department, the mines and minerals and the woods and forests should be placed under different Departments. If he meant entirely separate Departments for these particular
  208
  branches, he could not agree with his hon. Friend, because that would add enormously to the cost of administration. If, however, he simply meant that any one of these Departments should have separate officials for those particular branches, he agreed with him, and he might say that that was already being done to a certain extent. At the present time the mines and minerals Department was quite separate. He did not wish to attack his predecessor, and he was not aware what defence he would have to make, but he would leave him to reply to the Question which had been raised by the hon. Member for South West Norfolk.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid that he was not aware that this debate was coming on, otherwise he should have made himself more fully informed upon this subject. He ventured to say that the accusations which had been made against the administration of the Woods and Forests Department were totally unjustifiable. He was sure that the administration of that Department had been well carried out. He knew that there were changes of policy recommended by hon. Members opposite; and they might possibly consider that the whole system of farming was open to very grave objection. They might also hold the opinion that land under small holdings was capable for producing a great deal more than it was doing to-day. That, however, was a question which did not arise on this Vote, but it came under the administration of the Woods and Forests and under the management of the Commissioners to whom reference had been made. He did not think that if an investigation was made they would have the slightest

  209
  reason to complain of the way in which the property had been managed. During the whole of the time that he was responsible for the administration of the Woods and Forests, they were always prepared to listen to any suggestions which might be made. Although he did not know the facts of the case raised by the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk, he thought that when the matter had been further investigated they would find no reason to complain.
  MR. MORTONsaid he called attention to this matter eleven years ago, and it was then in a state of muddle. They had been given all sorts of promises, but the Department seemed to be in a worse state than ever. It was a curious thing that the big landowners did not like small holdings, because they did not consider that the tenants were respectable as they did not wear dress suits or cocked hats. Bearing in mind what happened at the last election he thought they should have a different state of things in the future.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEasked leave to withdraw his Amendment. His object had been satisfied by the attention of the Government having been directed to this subject. He regretted that he had been unable to give his hon. friend notice, but the time was so short, and he did not know that he would have been able to bring it on so early. He wished to point out that he had brought no charge against the two gentlemen who managed this property.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. WEIRmoved to reduce the item relating to the
  210
  Scottish Office by £100 in order to call attention to the state of affairs in the Western Islands of Scotland. He complained that the money devoted to the Congested Districts Board of Scotland for specific purposes had been squandered in a most shameful manner. He appealed to the Secretary for Scotland to look into this matter and see if he could not bring about some reform in the Board. Matters were going from bad to worse, and the whole subject required to be overhauled. The Board was not a paid one, and they would never get the work well done unless men were paid for it. The man who was chiefly responsible for the work was a clerk in the Exchequer Office, who engaged another man at about £200 a year. That was not the way to conduct the business of a Department such as this. This matter was a burning one in the district. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland smiled, but it was not a smiling matter. What was the right hon. Gentleman going to do in regard to the island of Lewis? A report was published a short time ago by the medical inspector of the Local Government Board for Scotland showing a state of affairs in the island not to be found in any other part of the British Empire. The medical officer had described it as a disgrace to our civilisation. The Public Health Act for Scotland did not touch it. What was going to be done? The local authority was powerless; they said they could not go no without money. Had the Government considered the desirability of taking over the public health of the island? The local authority had failed and would continue to fail. Some years ago the Education Department took over the schools in the island of Lewis because there was a deadlock. Things were now

  211
  at a deadlock with regard to public health in that insanitary island. He had travelled in many lands, but he had never seen anything so bad as that which existed in the island of Lewis. He wished to complain of the insanitary condition of many of the schools. Their was a long list of schools which had been closed for months in consequence of fevers and other infectious diseases. Highlanders had made some of the finest men in the British Army and they had volunteered in their hundreds and thousands to serve in the South African war. Were their children to be sent to schools which were badly ventilated and had no water supply? He had in his time asked a fair number of Questions in this House in the hope of getting some satisfaction out of the Government or the Scottish Office. He had visited the Scottish Office and seen the Permanent Under-Secretary; they all knew he was a Tory of the Tories. He did not get any satisfaction. He was not at all surprised that hon. Gentlemen were driven to ask Questions in this House, and he should be driven to ask them again. The small number he had asked in the past would be nothing to what he should ask in the future. He also had to complain of the action of the Inspector of Schools in the Island of Lewis in encouraging the School Board to set at defiance a circular issued in 1894 when Sir George Trevelyan was Secretary for Scotland. He begged to move.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item, Class 2, Vote 27 (Secretary for Scotland, Office of), be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Weir.)
  MR. JOHN DEWAR,de-aired to emphasise the seriousness of the
  212
  condition of the Western Islands, where a state of affairs existed which was not to be found in any other part of the United Kingdom. He would give one or two facts to prove the poverty and congestion which existed in the Western Hebrides. Eating was a very good test of the prosperity of a district. The combined rates in many of the parishes were as much as 13s., 15s., and 17s. in the £, and in one parish they were positively 20s. 8d. One of the proprietors in those islands told him that five years ago he paid £5,400 in rates, and this year, £7,500. Twenty years ago his rents came to £20,000, but this year they were £12,000, and there was no reason why, in a couple of years, his rates should not be as much as, or more than, his rent. This could not continue, and he joined with his hon. friend in saying that the Government had not done what it ought to remedy this state of affairs. In one of the parishes—that in which the rates were 20s. 8d. in the £—the ratepayers had refused to pay the rates, the parish council had resigned, and the bank had refused to advance money to help keep the paupers, and the Government had stepped in with a temporary loan of £200. That would keep them for a few months, but it was not a satisfactory or permanent solution of the question. Many circumstances no doubt had tended to produce the present state of affairs, but he was convinced that it was the landless condition of the people which was in the first place responsible. Ninety per cent. of the paupers came from the landless portion of the community and only 10 per cent. from the crofter class. Those people had agitated for twenty years to get access to the land. They did not want it for nothing. They

  213
  were prepared to pay a fair rent for the land they wanted to till. The Crofters' Act was passed for them and the Congested Districts Board created for them, and yet after twenty years agitation to get access to the land it was still refused to them. This was not the case of a bad landlord. The land belonged to a most benevolent proprietrix, who was anxious to do what she could for the people, and had already done a great deal, but it was a case of pure mismanagement. Were they to crush out this land hunger, or were they to try to satisfy it? He welcomed the sensible decision given by the Lord Advocate that it was no case of breach of the law but one of trespass and of civil action. The people were only anxious to become small holders.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid he thought the hon. Member was discussing a matter which would properly arise on a subsequent occasion.
  MR. JOHN DEWARsaid the Vote under discussion was for the Secretary for Scotland, who was Chairman of the Congested Districts Board, and it was of the failure of that Board to deal with this state of things that he was complaining. Were they to see a gunboat and a force of Glasgow policemen sent positively to prevent these people who were able to cultivate the land from becoming small holders? He welcomed what the Lord Advocate had now done. With regard to the Crofters' Commission he hoped it had not outlived its usefulness.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that subject was clearly out of order.
  MR. JOHN DEWARsaid he merely wanted to suggest that the work of the Congested Districts Board and the Croters' Commission ought to be combined. He desired to draw attention to the present condition of excitement—and he thought justifiable excitement—in the Western Islands, which had led to this agitation and discontent.
  MR. AINSWORTHconfirmed what had fallen from the lips of his hon. friends, and said he was most anxious to see more energetic action on behalf of the Government.
  MR. MORTONdesired to support as strongly as he could the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty and other hon. Members who had spoken. What they wanted the Government to do was to give up the traditions of the old Tory officials under them, and do something for themselves, and then probably there would be a better state of affairs than existed now. The offices were at the present time full of Tory officials, who bossed the Secretary for Scotland, or anybody else who was about, and therefore they got exactly the same answers to letters that they got from the late Tory Government, written evidently by the same office boy, and containing exactly the same words. He wished to urge upon the Government that something must be done for the people in the Highland counties.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,)said that on behalf of the Government he welcomed the short debate which had arisen in regard to the Western Islands, but before saying a word on the merits, of

  215
  the question he must suggest to his hon. friend that the political chiefs of the Department were responsible for its policy, and it was not right to bring into debate in this House, as he under stood it, civil servants and officials who were not there to answer for themselves, and who had to act under the political heads of their departments, upon whom the responsibility for the policy rested. It was only fair that that should be said of the criticisms upon civil servants that had been passed in this debate. He was exceedingly grateful to the hon. Members who had raised the debate, because it was unquestionably I the fact that a very serious condition of affairs existed in the Western Islands. This House bad not been able in past years—and it became increasingly difficult—to pay attention to questions which did not excite the interest of a large number of Members, and for this and other reasons these questions had suffered in past times. He was especially grateful, therefore, that the attention of the House should have been drawn, as it had been this evening, to the very serious condition of affairs that existed in Lewis, South Uist, Barra, and other parts of the Western Islands. It was quite true that the local rates were alarmingly high, and it was a serious problem as to how local government could be carried on. Altogether the social conditions were very difficult to deal with. There was no time to-night to enter exhaustively into a consideration of the matter, and it would be hardly possible for a Government that had come into office so recently to have formed any matured new policy to lay before the House; but he could assure the hon. Gentlemen who had spoken
  216
  that there was just as keen a desire to deal with the subject on the Treasury Bench as there was in any other quarter, and the Government would welcome help in every way towards a settlement of the question. They would be glad of any information as to facts and in every way they would be glad, so far as was in their power, to co-operate with hon. Members representing the districts concerned. When the time came—and he hoped it might come before very long this session—for an opportunity of discussing this question they would be able to get further in their consideration.
  MR. WEIRsaid that after the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman, he begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolution to be reported this day. Committee to sit again to-morrow.

  BUTTER TRADE.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider whether any and, if so, what further legislation is required in order to secure the better conduct and control of the Trade in Butter and Butter Substitutes.—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
  Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

VISCOUNT FERRARD.
Ordered, That the Report of the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom, made to the House of Lords on Thursday last, that the right of the Viscount Ferrard to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to his satisfaction, be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, together with a certificate stating that such Report has been made, and that the House has ordered it to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
West Cumberland Electric Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Presented; read 1a; and Referred to the Examiners.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with: Antofagasta (Chili) and Bolivia Railway [H.L.]; Bombay, Baroda, and Central India Railway (Purchase) [H.L.]; Bridgewater Canals [H.L.]; Crystal Palace Company [H.L.]; Essex and Suffolk Equitable Insurance Society [H.L.]; Folkestone and District Electricity Supply [H.L.]; Great Central and Lancashire, Derbyshire, and East Coast Railways [H.L.]; Great Northern Railway (Ireland) [H.L.]; Havana United Railways and Regla Warehouses [H.L.]; Holyhead Water [H.L.]; H. R. Baines and Company [H.L.]; Hull and Barnsley and Great Central Railway Companies [H.L.]; Hull and Barnsley Railway (Steam Vessels) [H.L.]; Hull Joint Dock [H.L.]; Kidderminster Gas [H.L.]; London and North Western Railway [H.L.]; Manchester and Milford Railway [H.L.]; Maryport Harbour [H.L.]; Mersey Railway [H.L.]; Milford Docks

3
[H.L.]; Mirfield Gas [H.L.]; National Assurance Company of Ireland and Yorkshire Fire and Life Insurance Company [H.L.]; Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways [H.L.]; Sheffield Assay Office [H.L.]; Sheffield District Railway [H.L.]; South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways [H.L.]; South Lancashire Tramways (Extension of Time) [H.L.]; Thames Deep Water Dock (Extension of Time) [H.L.]; Trent Navigation Company [H.L.]; Wirral Railway (Extension of Time) [H.L.]; Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Superannuation Fund) [H.L.]; Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway [H.L.]; Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways [H.L.]; Crediton Lighting and Power [H.L.]; Cardiff Railway [H.L.]; Great Western and Rhymney Railway Companies [H.L.]
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Crystal Palace Company Bill [H.L.]. The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn.
Accrington District Gas and Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Read 2a, and Committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Bethnal Green Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill [H.L.]; Read 2a, and Committed.
Bury Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Clacton Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Cumberland Electricity and Power Gas Bill [H.L.]; Read 2a, and Committed; the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Dover Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Dover Harbour Board Bill [H.L.]; Dover Harbour (Works, etc.) Bill [H.L.]; Read 2a, and Committed.
Fulwood Urban District Water Bill [H.L.]; Haslingden Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Read 2a, and Committed; the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill [H.L.]; Read 2a and Committed;
4
the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Nettlebed and District Commons (Preservation Bill) [H.L.]; Read 2a, and Committed.
Newport Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a, and Committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Newtownards Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Read 2a, and Committed.
Penllwyn Railway and Road Bill [H.L.]; Read 2a, and Committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Warboys (Union of Districts) Drainage Bill [H.L.]; Read 2a, and Committed.
Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill [H.L.]; Wolstanton United Urban District Council Gas Bill [H.L.]; Read 2a, and Committed: the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  NAVY (NAVAL WORKS).
  Memorandum showing the progress and expenditure on items included in the Naval Works Act.
  TRADE REPORTS, ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3532. Belgium (shipping and navigation of the Port of Antwerp for the year 1905).
  CHURCH ESTATES COMMISSION.
  Fifty-fifth Report from the Church Estates Commissioners, for the year preceding 1st March, 1906.
  Fifty-eighth Report from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, with an Appendix.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
  Return for the month of January, 1906.
  ARMY (ESTIMATES).
  Memorandum of the Secretary of State relating to the Army Estimates for 1906–1907.
  RUSSIA (NEW CUSTOMS TARIFF) (INTERIM STATEMENT).
  Translation of the New Customs Tariff of Russia, as modified by commercial treaties with Germany and France.

  STATISTICS.
  Statistical Abstract for the British Empire in each year from 1890 to 1904. Second Number.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PUBLIC RECORDS.
  (Northern Circuit).—Schedule containing a list and particulars of classes of documents existing or accruing in the office of the Clerk of Assize of the Northern Circuit which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office.
  (Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (Ordnance Survey)).—Schedule containing a list and particulars of a class of documents belonging to the office of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (Ordnance Survey Department) which is now in the Public Record Office but is not considered of sufficient public value to justify preservation therein.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889.
  Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University of Aberdeen to the Secretary for Scotland under the provisions of Section 30 of the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889, for the year 1904–1905.
  Annual Report on the state of the Finances of the University of Aberdeen under the provisions of Section 30 of the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889, for the year 1904–1905.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on. the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL [H.L.] (NO. 22).
  A Bill to make further provision with respect to the arrangement of polling districts for the election of county councillors: and

  POLLING ARRANGEMENTS (PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS) BILL [H.L.] (No. 23).
  A Bill to amend the law relating to the arrangement of polling districts in Parliamentary boroughs:
  Were presented by the Lord Monks-well; Read 1a; to be printed; and to be Read 2a on Monday next.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Appointed: The Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:

E. Crewe. (L. President.)

V. Knutsford.

V. Churchill.

D. Bedford.

L. Zouche of Haryngworth.

D. Marlborough.

D. Northumberland.

L. Barnard.

L. Balfour.

M. Lansdowne.

L. Ribblesdale.

M. Salisbury.

L. Colchester.

M. Bath.

L. Poltimore.

E. Derby.

L. Kintore. (E. Kintore.)

E. Denbigh.

E. Chesterfield.

L. Belper.

E. Jersey.

L. Brougham and Vaux.

E. Lauderdale.

E. Waldegrave.

L. Kinnaird.

E. Cadogan.

L. Hylton.

E. Howe.

L. Fermanagh. (E. Erne.)

E. Amherst.

E. Camperdown.

L. Herries.

E. Dartrey. E.

L. Monkswell.

E. Lytton.

L. Newton.

E. Carrington.

L. Welby.

V. Sidmouth.

L. Ludlow.

All petitions relating to the Standing Orders which shall be presented during the present session referred to the Committee unless otherwise ordered.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Select Committee appointed: the Lords following with the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President, the Lord Privy Seal, and the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:

D. Northumberland.

V. Gordon. (E. Aberdeen.)

M. Bath.

V. Hampden.

M. Cholmondeley.

V. Cross.

M. Breadalbane.

V. Peel.

E. Liverpool. (L. Steward.)

V. Knutsford.

V. Churchill.

E. Clarendon.

L. Balfour.

E. Chesterfield

L. Ribblesdale.

E. Waldegrave.

L. Colchester.

E. Spencer.

L. Rosebery. (E. Rosebery.)

E. Mount Edgcumbe.

L. Kintore. (E. Kintore.)

E. Belmore.

E. Cawdor.

L. Belper.

E. Camperdown.

L. Tweedmouth.

E. Cranbrook.

L. Monk Bretton.

E. Ancaster.

L. Macnaghten.

E. Carrington.

L. Welby.

E. Halsbury.

L. Burghclere.

E. Plymouth.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
The Lords following, viz.:

E. Waldegrave.

L. Ribblesdale.

V. Churchill.

L. Denman.

with the Chairman of Committees, were appointed a Committee to select and propose to the House the names of the five Lords to form a Select Committee for the consideration of each opposed Private Bill.

STANDING COMMITTEE.
Ordered, That a Standing Committee be appointed for the consideration of such Public Bills as may be committed to it by the House.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR THE STANDING COMMITTEE.
Appointed: The Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:

E. Liverpool. (L. Steward.)

L. Balfour

L. Ribblesdale.

E. Jersey.

L. Kintore. (E. Kintore)

E. Waldegrave.

V. Churchill.

L. Lawrence.

CHINESE LABOUR.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHrose to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies "if he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the legal opinions upon which His Majesty's Ministers determined to stop the recruiting of Chinese coolies for labour in the Transvaal."
The noble Duke said: My Lords, I do not desire to detain your Lordships more than a few minutes in asking the noble Earl the Colonial Secretary the Questions which stand in my name. I need hardly remind the noble Earl that he undertook the administration of the Colonial Office early in the month of December, and the Parliamentary Papers which he has presented to this House show that on December 30th, only a fortnight after he had undertaken the administration of Colonial affairs, he decided to reverse entirely the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to the importation of Chinese coolies. I wish to ask the noble Earl whether he can give the House the legal opinions upon which that very important decision, entirely reversing our policy, was based. Although I believe it is somewhat unusual to ask for the publication of legal opinions in such cases, yet it would be a source of great satisfaction if the noble Earl could give them to us in this case. It would be all the more interesting in view of the fact that the attitude of the Government was considerably modified from the first decision which they arrived at.
We now understand, from expressions of opinion by members of the Government in the other House of Parliament, that the existing contracts are not to be disallowed, but are to continue in existence and to hold good until 17th May, 1907. The noble Earl will, in reply, probably state that it is not usual to give the legal opinions upon which His Majesty's Government arrive at decisions. At the same time, it is wel within our memory that only last year in the House of Commons the Solicitor-General in the late Administration defended his action in giving advice with regard to the case of Adolf Beck, and I think that is sufficient precedent to show that on occasions His Majesty's Government have given the legal opinions upon

9
which they have arrived at a definite decision of policy.
But there is one other question which I should like to put to the noble Earl the Colonial Secretary, arising out of this one. I have not included it in my Question on the Paper, and consequently I cannot press him for an answer, but if he could reply it would be a matter of great satisfaction to us. As the noble Earl informed us, there were some 16,000 licences granted between July and November, 1905. These licences will not expire, so far as we are aware, until the year 1908. According to the terms of the contract, the coolie's engagement does not commence until the date of his arrival on the Rand, and I gather that between now and even as late as May there will be several batches of coolies arriving. Consequently the last batch of coolies who arrive in May, 1906, will be indentured up to May, 1909. I should like to ask the noble Earl if he can inform the House whether their contracts will hold good up to the year 1909, or whether they will be broken by any action of His Majesty's Government. I do not desire to press this latter point too strongly upon the noble Earl, because, as I have already said, the Question is not included in the notice which I have placed on the Paper, but if he can give us an answer I shall be much obliged to him.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ELGIN): My Lords, I cannot help thinking that the noble Duke has put this question under a little misapprehension. It is evidently based on a telegram of January 5th to Lord Selborne, in which the phrase that he has quoted occurs—"the substance of which is concurred in by the legal advisers of the Crown." That, no doubt, is the origin of the noble Duke's Question, but that telegram, as will be seen on reference to it, referred, not to the act of the Government in suspending further licences, but to a difficulty—a legal difficulty—which had arisen as to whether we could revoke licences which had already been signed; and it was on that point, and that point only, that we said we had an opinion of the Attorney-General of the Transvaal, "the substance of which is concurred in by the legal
10
advisers of the Crown." In another telegram in the same Paper the noble Duke will find what the opinion of the Attorney-General of the Transvaal was on that point, and the action of His Majesty's Government was to accept the opinion given by the Attorney-General. All that we meant by this expression was that after conference with our legal advisers in this country we were satisfied that that opinion was correct. It did not refer in the least to the act of His Majesty's Government in suspending further licences. That was an act of policy, and not an act on which any legal opinion had arisen.
The noble Duke is quite correct in saying that it is entirely contrary to practice that when a case is submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown their opinion should be published, and I do not think the fact that the Solicitor-General defended any particular decision in the House of Commons in any way deviates from that rule. But in this case, at any rate, we had no opinion from the Law Officers of the Crown which we can lay, and that is my answer on this point to the noble Duke. The noble Duke also asked a question, of which he did not give me notice, as to whether the latest batch of 16,000 licences will hold good until 1909. My answer off-hand, and without getting any information or advice on the subject, is that it is our hope and expectation that the reforms in the government of the Transvaal will be carried out in time to enable their decision to be taken on this question before 1909.
VISCOUNT RIDLEYrose to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies to grant a Return showing what petitions were received at the Colonial Office against the employment of Chinese labour in South Africa.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the Question which I desire to put to the noble Earl is somewhat of a similar character—namely, a desire for further information—to that which has just been submitted by the noble Duke, and perhaps I may be permitted to state, in a few words, the character of the information which I desire, and why I desire it. This House has been told

11
before, in more than one debate, that certain indications of the opinion of responsible bodies in South Africa were in favour of Chinese labour or of some system of Chinese indentured labour. I need not repeat what has been said in previous debates, but I have made a careful study of the Blue-book recently issued, and I cannot find that there is any mention of responsible opinion expressed against the system which His Majesty's Government have now undertaken to condemn. On page 6 there is a report of a meeting at Petersstroem which was addressed by Mr. Creswell, whose opinions are well known; on page 17 appears a resolution passed by the Executive Committee of the Transvaal Political Labour League—the Executive Committee, not the representative body; and, thirdly, I find, on page 119, a resolution from the Cape Town branch of the Africander Bond, which in the main is not a resolution against the continuance of Chinese labour so much as a resolution in favour of the loyalty of the Africander Bond. Are those the only indications which have reached His Majesty's Government as regards the state of opinion in South Africa? If not, what opinions can they give us, and will they publish them? I think it is important that we should have some information of the reasons which have led the Government to come to their present decision on this matter.
I would desire to give the Government every credit which a party man can give. I would not desire unduly to attack them in a matter of Imperial administration, or to embarrass them more than is necessary; but I could not help being attracted by the speech of the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he quoted the famous despatch of Lord Durham and referred with justifiable pride to his family connection with the author. There is a passage in that despatch which I have no doubt the noble Earl has read. Lord Durham wrote—
"Hitherto the course of policy adopted by the English Government in this Colony has had reference to the state of parties in England instead of the wants and the circumstances of the province."
I would desire further information upon this point, because I do not wish to be obliged to charge the Government with
12
committing the error referred to in this despatch.
I do not think that, as regards the administration of our Empire, either Party can be said to be entirely free from blame. It has been perhaps a fault incidental to our party system that there have been cases when the needs and aspirations of the Colonies come into conflict with Party needs and aspirations at home. I venture to think that, so far as the information which we now have enables us to judge of the question, there is serious danger that these warnings of Lord Durham are at this moment being neglected. What, as we understand it, is the attitude to be adopted in regard to this important question so far as the wishes of the colonists themselves are concerned? They are to have responsible government, which is to decide the question, but they are not to be allowed to decide it as they would wish; and, meanwhile, we are kept in absolute ignorance of any new information, any fresh light, any new views thrown on the subject by those most concerned in South Africa. If it is wrong for a Conservative Government to interfere with the affairs of a colony, I venture to think it is trebly wrong for noble Lords opposite, who call themselves members of the Liberal Party, the Party which makes it a matter of pride to give self-government to the Colonies—I venture to say it is trebly wrong of them to interfere in the affairs of a colony as I understand they propose to do in this case.
I confess I am somewhat in a dilemma in this matter. It is difficult to gather what is the real intention of His Majesty's Government. So far as I can judge, there are two opposite schools of thought in the Party, and I do not know which school I am to follow, and consequently which arguments to adopt. Am I to adopt the line of thought so eloquently pleaded for by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack the other day, who remains of the opinion that this Ordinance is—or, shall I say, partakes—of the nature of slavery? Am I to adopt his school of thought, and then to ask when this iniquitous system is to end? I look for an answer, and I find it in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place. This iniquitous system

13
which, in the opinion of many of your Lordships and a great many more outside the House who belong to the Liberal Party, is so near to slavery, to put it at the least, that it ought to be ended, is to be ended at the moment that a Transvaal Government asks to be allowed to continue it. Or am I to adopt the opposite view, the view of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who disclaimed the other day all responsibility for the use of the term "slavery" in connection with the employment of Chinese coolies in South Africa?
According to many members of the Liberal Party, this system is not slavery. Well, what is the line of argument in that case? This system is not slavery, and you are going to hand it over to the Transvaal Government to be dealt with. Yet if the Transvaal Government ask to be allowed to pass this Ordinance, which you yourselves have said is not slavery, you are going to disallow it. Why? That is where I want more information, because, failing other things, I confess that this passage in Lord Durham's report frequently occurs to my mind. I do not like to charge noble Lords opposite, who, I know, have a high regard for the integrity of the Constitution, with thinking rather of their Party needs than of the good of the Colonies. After all, what do noble Lords opposite think has put them on those benches? What is the policy on which they have been returned?
LORD DENMAN: Free trade.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: The noble Lord thinks that they have been returned to support the policy of absolute negation which, on the authority of the Duke of Devonshire, is a system we have not got, and other noble Lords think they were returned in order to pass Home Rule. I know that is the opinion of a great many Members in the other House. Was that the constructive policy put before the country? No, my Lords, the constructive policy which was put before the country at the last election, and which placed noble Lords on those benches opposite, was that of ending a system of what was termed Chinese slavery in South Africa; and now that the
14
Government have got into power I am very glad they do not propose to go the length advocated by some of their followers in the country. I cannot help feeling that there are a great many noble Lords sitting on the Front Bench opposite who for that very reason—and I say it with the utmost respect, and without the slightest reflection upon their abilities—have no right to sit there. They are proposing legislation for which the people of the country did not return them. Their followers and their friends have been throughout the length and breadth of the land educating the country—their Minister of Education has, at any rate, succeeded in that—down to certain ideas about Chinese slavery, and telling the electors all sorts of things which we are now told constituted a "terminological inexactitude" or were "descriptive terms."
We all desire to see the British Empire conducted without any taint of slavery. Yet the friends of noble Lords opposite have been going from constituency to constituency telling men who do not have much opportunity of judging, that we on this side of the House are slave-drivers and that our brother colonists in the Transvaal are men guilty of the most horrible crimes and the most evil treatment of those committed to their charge. I think the state of affairs is one which does demand more information than His Majesty's Government have given us before we can refrain from the temptation of making charges which I would not desire to make. After all, you condemn the system. What are you going to do to alter it? You are going to ask the British taxpayer to return these Chinese coolies home to their native country. I sincerely trust that the noble Earl is right when he expresses the belief that this offer will not be largely availed of; but if it is not largely availed of, what becomes of all the charges which have been made, and are still being made in some constituencies, as regards the treatment of these Chinese coolies? On the other hand, if that opportunity is largely availed of by the coolies, what becomes of all the economies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? What becomes of his hope, as expressed to a deputation, that when he had made considerable remissions he would be

15
able to consider old-age pensions? The fact is that not only is this doubtful course being pursued by His Majesty's Government, but it is being pursued in the absence of all information, and all endeavour, so far as we can gather, to collect information.
You have made these charges all over the country. I maintain that you are now in a position either to substantiate them and deserve those seats which you now occupy, or, if you cannot substantiate them, to be convicted of having obtained those seats—I will not say by false pretences, but on issues which are no longer to be the issues of your policy. I wish to say a few words on certain facts of the situation which seem to me to add to the need for information. I do not speak here for any particular section or any particular part of the community. I do not speak for the Rand magnates. I think they can very well take care of themselves. I do not speak for the Boers. I think noble Lords opposite can properly take care of them. But I do feel deeply concerned for the great masses of the community to whom my noble friend the Earl of Harrowby referred the other day—the small shareholders, not only in this country, but in France, Germany, and on the Continent generally, who are very deeply concerned in this question.
Noble Lords opposite, or certainly their friends in the country, seem to think that by pursuing this policy they are having a hit at what they term Rand-lords. They think they are going to damage Park Lane. I think they are mistaken. I think the small shareholders are the men who will be hit, and I will give one or two reasons why that seems to me to be so. Suppose the policy of repatriating the Chinaman and returning him to his native country is carried out to the full; suppose they do succeed—which I do not think they can—in obtaining white labour at even 10s. a day to take the place of Chinese labour, the cost would work out at something like 45s. a ton. How many mines in South Africa can make a profit when it costs them 45s. a ton to get out the ore? Seven only, and those seven mines—I could give the names if desired—are the very mines which are in the hands of the Park
16
Lane magnates, if I may use the term. The other mines, whose production is not so rich as to enable them to work at the enhanced price, would have to dismiss their workmen, white and Kaffir, presumably, as well as Chinese, and those are the mines in the hands of the small shareholders. It is, therefore, I contend, the small shareholder who would suffer by such a policy.
There is just one other consideration I would refer to. I find in the report of the Transvaal Chamber of Mines that the demand for machinery which would be caused by the gradual increase in labour which South Africa asks for would amount to £12,000,000 worth in a very short space of time. That may or may not be an exaggeration, but there can be no doubt that there would be a great demand for machinery and stores if the Transvaal industry were allowed to progress at a reasonable rate. In supplying that machinery this country might reasonably be expected to take some share. I suppose that to noble Lords opposite, who refer with such satisfaction to the import and export returns of this country and who regard trade as in such a happy and prosperous condition that they are compelled to bring in a Bill to relieve the unemployed, it is not a matter of such great concern that we should be in a position to take advantage of these opportunities we have in South Africa; but I venture to think it is a matter of importance to this country that trade should be developed there and that we should have a large portion of the imports which would necessarily follow. These are some of the reasons why I ask for full information as to the precise facts upon which the noble Earl and his colleagues have founded their decision as expressed in the various utterances we have heard, and I trust we may be allowed to have the fullest information on the points I have asked in my question.
LORD COLERIDGE: My Lords, the House has listened to a speech which, I think, marks most clearly the distinction which is characteristic between the two sides of this House as to what real Imperialism means. Both parties in this House call themselves Imperialists,

17
but, if I can judge from the speeches upon this question delivered to us by noble Lords opposite, their Imperialism is limited to the production of gold in a particular country by labour which is under servile conditions.
The noble Viscount wants information. Has the noble Viscount forgotten—he cannot have forgotten—that the policy which the late Government pursued was in flat contradiction of the expressed opinion of our great self-governing Colonies? Canada alone expressed no opinion, not because she had no opinion, but because she thought it was a matter in which she was not concerned. Australia, New Zealand, and, above all, Cape Colony—those three great Colonies to which we looked during the War, and from which we obtained most substantial and material aid—have again and again in reiterated language, as strong as any language that could be used, expressed their detestation of the introduction of Chinese labour under these conditions. There is no indication that they have in any way changed their opinion. Therefore, if the noble Viscount is, as I hope he is, and I am sure he believes he is, a true Imperialist, he cannot disregard altogether, and set aside as of no account, the opinions of these great self-governing communities. Then the noble Viscount seems, in his desire to look at the monetary side of the question, to disregard all other elements in the case. He says that, if so many mines are thrown out of working by the cessation of Chinese labour under these conditions, that is an overwhelming and conclusive argument for the continuance of this labour. That is not the view of those who sit on this side of the House, and it is not the view of the country. The noble Viscount seems to think that we have made charges in the country from which we are now receding. I should like to know what charge it is that we do not still entertain and press.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Slavery.
LORD COLERIDGE: Slavery! I see the noble Viscount, Lord Milner, in his place. The noble Viscount called every Outlander a helot. Dictionaries have been referred to, and if the noble Viscount will look at Webster's Dictionary he will
18
find that helot means slave. I do not suppose that when the noble Viscount called the Outlanders helots he himself believed, or thought anyone else believed, that the Outlanders were helots in the sense that they could be bought and sold in the slave market. So, when the word slavery is used in connection with Chinese labour, the country knows perfectly well that the men are not bought and sold in the slave market. But they also know this: that they are denied access to the common law, which is one of the most prized possessions of every British subject, except through the leave and licence of an official, and that they were illegally flogged in the compounds, and illegally flogged by the sanction of the High Commissioner. That is quite enough to justify any one in describing their condition as that, not of freemen, but of semi-slavery.
The noble Viscount wants information. It is very difficult, let me tell him, to get really true information from the Transvaal. The noble Viscount must be well aware that Johannesburg is in the hands of a huge trust, a trust which is every day grasping within its purview more and more of the industries of that country; and that it has inevitably happened that every really free independent white man in Johannesburg has had to quit the country if he did not fall in with the views of the great mining magnates. It seems to me this question should be decided on higher considerations than on the mere question of whether or not so much money can be obtained for the shareholders. I see the noble Lord who spoke so eloquently the other night on behalf of the shareholders (Lord Harris) in his place. I would point out that the shareholders in the noble Lord's mines, as well as other mines, are already in the position of highly-favoured subjects. The noble Lord's mines promised to contribute £1,000,000 towards the £30,000,000 that were to come from the Transvaal. The noble Lord is not asked, and, as I understand, it is doubtful whether he ever will be asked, to contribute a penny of that £1,000,000, and therefore the shareholders for whom noble Lords so eloquently plead are not persons who are being maltreated by the Executive

19
Government of the day, but persons in receipt of very great favours.
After all, this question ought, as I say, to be considered on higher grounds than these. It is very easy for one Government to make contracts which are condemned by the Opposition, and then to twit the Opposition when they come into power because they are unable legally to break those contracts. It is an argument easy to use, but it is one which will deceive no one; and I venture to think that, so far from the country having receded from its position, it is only impatient at what it considers to be the hesitation of the Government. It is true that the evil men do lives after them, and this Government have to maintain the contracts entered into by their predecessors, and are only able to arrive by the process of a side wind at the object they desire. If, as the noble Viscount is so persuaded, the Chinaman is one of the happiest men in the world, he will not wish to break his contract and return to his native country, and the shareholders for whom the noble Viscount pleaded would have no shortage of Chinese labour. The very fact that he seems so alarmed at the prospect of a diminution in this labour seems to me to indicate a suspicion in his mind that when the coolies are asked whether they wish to return they will express that desire in very large numbers. I hope that the noble Earl the Secretary of State, when he answers the Questions put to him by the noble Viscount, will not content himself with speaking of the opinions of the dwellers in the Transvaal at this moment, but will look to the larger interests of the country and the Empire, not overlooking the opinion of our great self-governing colonies.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I had intended, under any circumstances, to ask your Lordships to favour me with a few moments, even if the noble and learned lords opposite had not challenged me on one or two particular points. The mention of the name of Mr. Creswell by my noble friend Viscount Ridley gives me an opportunity of correcting a statement which I made the other night, and which has been challenged in a letter by Mr. Monypenny in The Times. From the statement I made it might have been
20
inferred that Mr. Creswell resigned from the management of the mine known as the Village Main Reef Mine during an experiment which he was conducting with a very large proportion of white unskilled labour, and that his resignation was due to the Board of that company having deemed the experiment a failure. I was incorrect in the time when Mr. Creswell resigned. He resigned during the course of the experiment, and not in consequence of any dissatisfaction on that point of his Board, and I take this opportunity of expressing my regret to Mr. Creswell that I made that misstatement. But it does not affect the argument I was elaborating, which was that the experiment was initiated by Mr. Creswell and proved to be a failure; that it was condemned by the Board after reports from engineers of a superior grade to Mr. Creswell, and that Mr. Creswell ever since then has had a grievance which he argued at considerable length in the Johannesburg Press. I take this opportunity, however, of expressing my regret that my statement on that particular point was not quite accurate. The noble and learned Lord opposite stated that the particular company with which I am associated promised to pay £1,000,000.
LORD COLERIDGE: Guaranteed.
LORD HARRIS: Yes, it is a very different thing. What exactly happened was this: Mr. Chamberlain when in South Africa arranged with his colleagues at home that a loan of £35,000,000 should be made to the Transvaal, and while the discussion on that point was going on it was suggested that another loan of £30,000,000 should be contracted by the Transvaal for the purpose of contributing towards the war debt in England, and the mining groups were asked what they would do in the way of assisting this loan. What they did was this: They said that if the loan was brought out at a time when markets were favourable they would guarantee the first £10,000,000. That was not a contribution to a debt; it was merely an investment by the companies who undertook to guarantee it. They would have had marketable securities guaranteed by the Government and easily saleable, and the groups would have bought the bonds and sold them in the

21
same way as they would any other gilt-edged securities. There was never any guarantee that any one of these groups would make a donation towards a debt, and I should be glad if the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if not now, at some future time, would state what was the exact undertaking which the groups entered into, because there has been an entire misconception about this. I remember the noble Earl Lord Spencer last year dropping into a similar mistake and talking about a debt of £10,000,000. There was never any £10,000,000 debt mentioned in the discussions with Mr. Chamberlain out there, or in the communications between the houses and the Colonial Office here.
I understood the noble and learned Lord to say that he thought the noble Viscount and those who agreed with him laid too much stress upon the extraction of gold from the Rand mines, and thought that that was the only thing that was of importance. If he wishes to put that idea into the mouths of those who are responsible in a great measure for the prosperity of the Transvaal I can assure him he is entirely mistaken. What we say is that gold mining is at the bottom of the whole economic system in South Africa; that the imports into those Colonies at present would to an enormous extent be absolutely impossible but for the extraction of the gold; in fact, that the gold and diamond mines in South Africa cause the greater part of the trade there, and that any activity in that country, agricultural or industrial, is in the greatest measure due to the gold-mining industry. Obviously, if the circulation of capital which the gold-mining creates is to cease there will be less activity and less employment in South Africa, and to that extent the country will suffer. That is the argument of those who are concerned in this great industry. You would inevitably see a diminution in business in South Africa if this industry is seriously checked.
I would ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies to as soon as he can relieve the anxiety of those who are concerned in this business. I hope he will tell us what the terms are to be under which the coolies are to be repatriated, because a great deal depends upon that. It is generally assumed that a large
22
number of coolies would not take advantage of this offer, but we are in a state of great anxiety as to what is going to happen on that point. It materially affects the operation of very many companies. If I may go into technicalities for a moment, may I explain what I mean? There are mines now for which the money was subscribed as long ago as 1898. Owing to the war and subsequently to the shortage of labour it was impossible to do work upon those mines. The money subscribed had been lying at interest, and to that extent the company had benefited; on the other hand, the unfortunate shareholders had had no interest on their money; but in consequence of the arrival of the Chinese those mines have been able to set to work, to get the water pumped out with which the shafts were filled during the war, to replace everything that had to be replaced owing to corrosion, rotting timbers, and so on, and then to proceed with what is technically termed development—the preparation of the workings for the ore to be extracted for the mill.
There are many mines which are now in a position to order the mills, and they are suddenly checked. They are put into grave doubt as to whether labour will be forthcoming. It is not unnatural that in those circumstances they should hesitate to order the necessary machinery. The noble Viscount stated just now that £12,000,000 was the amount that might be spent on mines that were ready for machinery. I think the figures are given in the report presented to Lord Selborne by the Chamber of Mines as something between £10,000,000 and £11,000,000. That expenditure is checked. It takes two years to erect a mill of, say, 200 stamps, and get it ready for working, and during those two years development is carried on so that the mill may start with two years development ahead. It is obvious that if the ordering of this plant is to be deferred for some length of time there is no occasion for the companies to go on with the development, and if they do not proceed it means the discharge of a considerable number of employees. I am perfectly Certain of this, that sooner than do that the companies will continue to employ their full staffs for the longest

23
time possible. They will put in all the work they can underground; but this matter is based on finance, and sooner or later, unless their hesitation is removed, they may have to come to the unfortunate decision to reduce their staffs. That means, as I suggested just now, lack of employment, lack of business, a diminution in the circulation of money in South Africa, and the inevitable suffering of the Colonies. I have placed some Questions on the Paper as regards the comparison between the Transvaal Ordinance and the British Guiana Ordinance. I do not think there will be any necessity for me to trouble the House by putting those Questions. The points are highly technical ones. I would ask the noble Earl to look very carefully into the Ordinance, and suggest in what points the Transvaal Ordinance can be made more like the British Guiana Ordinance, for I am perfectly certain that it would be possible for us to agree to the changes which the Colonial Office might think desirable.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, as the whole question of servile labour has been raised, and as I intended to put a Question with regard to the reading of the Ordinance, I should like to say a few words now. I think that if I am permitted to make a short statement at this stage my Question to the Secretary of State which stands on the Paper need not be put. I find myself very much in the same position as my noble and learned friend Lord Coleridge. I have gone up and down the country talking about Free Trade, Chinese labour, and other matters. From the moment when my chairmanship of the London County Council came to an end in March, 1904—I make this statement, as it is the fashion to make confessions with regard to one's utterances on the platform—I have addressed some forty meetings from Dudley to Weymouth, and I have made very free use of the question of Chinese labour.
There is one matter that I have always put before the country in connection with the servile condition of this labour as applied to the Chinese. Very much to my surprise, about a year ago the noble Lord opposite (Lord Harris) told the House that the Chinese Labour Ordinance
24
was so strictly construed that a Chinaman was not allowed to do his own gardening; he was not allowed to work in his garden and grow his own vegetables; he was not even allowed to grow a flower for his delectation. This is, in my opinion, a very degrading condition of labour. Indeed, I can hardly imagine any condition of labour more degrading. I can quite understand that His Majesty's Government may have the greatest possible difficulty in dealing with the question of the restriction of Chinese labour to mining work. Yet if a man is not allowed in his spare hours to do a little gardening, it only shows the abominably servile condition of this labour. I do not know whether you would call that slavery. For my part, I say it is worse than slavery, because a slave, after he has done his master's work, is allowed to work on his own patch. I do hope that, whatever difficulties the Secretary of State for the Colonies may have in settling the terms of this Ordinance, he will, at all events, never permit it to be said that under his guidance and direction a Chinaman, or anybody else under the British flag, was prohibited in his spare hours from doing a little gardening on his own account.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, if I may occupy the time of the House for a few moments I think I can contribute something to the point. One is unwilling to be always referring to one's own personal experience, but in the compound which I visited in South Africa I saw with my own eyes the gardens in which the Chinamen worked after their hours of labour. I do not know whether that was the case in all compounds; I can only speak of the one which I saw. I think the noble and learned Lord opposite has somewhat misrepresented the opinions of those who, like myself, support the action of the late Government in regard to this Chinese Ordinance. Speaking for myself, my Lords, though I desire to see full justice done to the mining industry, I support this Ordinance, not so much on account of the interests of the mining industry, as because the development of, the mines is the key, not merely of the economic prosperity of South Africa, but of the political

25
prosperity of that country and its security at the present time.
May I add one word as to the attitude which the noble and learned Lord opposite attributed to Cape Colony? It appears to me that the noble and learned Lord's statement amounted to no more than this: that the people of Cape Colony, like many others, were unwilling, in the first instance, that Chinese labour should be employed. Their attitude was not different from that of Mr. Chamberlain, but I should be surprised to learn that the objection is still entertained now that they have learned how necessary Chinese labour is, not merely for the welfare of the Transvaal, but of Cape Colony itself. I cannot give the exact reference, but not very long ago there was published a return of those in Cape Colony who were employing convict labour on their own farms. It is an interesting fact that among those who were employing convict labour in this way in Cape Colony were some—at all events one—who had spoken in most emphatic terms of the servile conditions under which the Chinese were employed in the Transvaal. If you come to servile conditions, I would ask which constitutes the greater servile condition—to employ in a compound, which in many cases is greater in area than some of the largest English parks, Chinamen within those limits of freedom, or to employ on your farm a batch of convicts, not chained, but who are not allowed out of the sight of a policeman, who watches over them with a loaded carbine? I cannot believe that those who employ such labour can be very sincere when they find fault with the conditions that obtain in the case of the Chinese. I am afraid it is a case of political arguments for political purposes.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, on a point of personal explanation, might I be allowed to quote my authority for the statement I made? Lord Harris stated in your Lordship's House on February 27th, 1905—I am quoting from Hansard—that—
"Quite recently I asked a colleague of mine who has returned from the Transvaal whether the Chinamen were allowed to do any gardening in the neighbourhood of the compounds, and my friend replied, 'Oh dear, no; there is such an amount of suspicion as to Chinamen
26
doing work which is not allowed under the Ordinance that they are not permitted to do any gardening for themselves.'"
LORD HARRIS: I have no doubt it was quite true a year ago.
LORD MONKSWELL: I am very glad to find that it has been altered.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: The difference is quite clear. I was talking of gardening work within the compound, and Lord Harris, in the extract which has just been quoted, was referring to work outside the compound.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord opposite that there is nothing further from my wish than to deny him any information which he would desire to have. We have been told that we are too much in search of information, and I am glad to find that noble Lords opposite also desire to receive information. But the question which the noble Lord has put to me leaves me a little in doubt as to the nature of the information which he desires to receive. He asks for a return showing what petitions were received at the Colonial Office against the employment of Chinese labour in South Africa. In the first place, I should like to know what is included in the word "petitions." Does that mean petitions in the ordinary sense of the word, or would the noble Lord include resolutions of public meetings, memorials, and other documents of the kind?
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I meant to include them.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: In the next place, I would like to know whether the noble Lord means information coming from South Africa or elsewhere. It will naturally occur to the noble Lord that I would only have documents forwarded to me officially from South Africa, and not resolutions which arise in this country. In the next place I would like to know within what dates the noble Lord requires this information. How far does he go back? Does he want the petitions which were sent to the last Government, or is it only during our

27
tenure of office? I am informed, so far as official information from South Africa is concerned, that everything that has been sent to us in the nature of resolutions and otherwise has practically been included in the Blue-books which have been i sued. I cannot quite see how I am to collect the information of the other kind of which I have spoken. Since we came into office I do not think that any information of this kind has reached us from South Africa; but I am informed that a year or two ago, at the time when this Ordinance was under preparation or was just being issued, there was a very remarkable influx of petitions of all kinds into the Colonial Office, but these, unfortunately, do not appear to have been preserved. I presume that they were addressed to the Secretary of State at the time, and that they have either been taken away with him as his private papers, or he did not consider them worth preservation. At any rate, I am afraid I am unable to supply anything from that source. At the same time, if the noble Lord will inform me afterwards of any way in which I can meet his wishes, I shall be only too glad to give him any return which it is in my power to give. I doubt, however, the value of anything we can give him beyond what has already been published.
In regard to what has been said in amplification of this Question, I would like, in the first place, to say that I do not admit that I separate myself from the view that there are conditions attached to the Ordinance which limit that right of free men which any man under the British flag ought to possess. Indeed, I thought I argued at some length that that was my view of the matter. With regard to the Ordinance itself, I should wish to add that I did quote certain provisions which, in my opinion, were contrary to common law. Two of those provisions I find have a place in the law of the Transvaal in application to other than Chinese coolies, but there is this difference—that, so far as they apply to whites, a white if he comes under them can, at any rate, take himself out of the country. A native also has this remedy, that he can desert, and desert effectually. I know he is liable to a penalty if he is
28
caught for desertion, but something like 5 per cent. of the natives who desert make their desertion effectual and escape altogether. There is nothing of the sort in the case of the Chinaman. He cannot get across the seas. When I last spoke on this matter I coupled with my criticism of those two sections the section referring to compulsory repatriation, which, I think, lies at the very essence of the matter.
The noble Lord also spoke of the difficulties which he thought would arise in consequence of our announcement that we should reserve the right of veto with regard to the provisions of any Ordinance which the Transvaal Government should introduce, and to which we thought we could take exception. There seems to me a little misunderstanding on this matter. It is in some quarters supposed that the proposals which we have made, and which were described by my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the other House, would leave a hiatus during the time between the cancellation of the existing Ordinance and the passing of the new Ordinance by the Transvaal Government. That was not the intention. What my right hon. friend's proposal came to was this, that there should be a date fixed at which the existing Ordinance would necessarily and naturally come to an end; but that date would be fixed at such a reasonable period of time as to allow the new Government to consider and to submit for the acceptance of His Majesty's' Government the Ordinance under which they proposed to continue Chinese labour, provided always they did so resolve. I think the noble Lord will see that if that arrangement was fairly and squarely carried out there would be no difficulty of that kind.
I regret that the noble Lord should insist on attributing to us political motives in this matter. In speaking of our position with regard to the Constitution, I endeavoured to explain that, though we had thought it necessary to recall the Letters Patent now existing, we did not in doing so in any way prejudice the full and fair consideration of all the parts of the basis on which that Constitution was framed. I hold to what I then said. His Majesty's Government think it is

29
necessary to consider various details with regard to those Letters Patent and other matters which might affect the Constitutions necessary for responsible government, and we wish time to gather the information which we think bears on these points. I entirely agree with my noble friend opposite that it is of great imporance that the time should be limited as much as possible, in the interests not only of the mining industry but of all the economic considerations bearing on the welfare of the Colony; and I can assure him that no effort on our part will be spared to carry out this arrangement as quickly as possible. But, my Lords, I venture also to say that we go into this examination in no sense whatever seeking alterations in the interests of any Party, and I do not think the noble Lord opposite was justified in imputing to us any desire to do so.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but I was asking for information on this point because I was expressly anxious not to impute Party motives to the Government for the action they have taken.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: The phrase which I think the noble Viscount used, was—
"We know very well that noble Lords opposite will look after the Boers."
I maintain that we are endeavouring to legislate, we intend to legislate, for an integral part of the British Empire. All we want is to secure fair conditions for every portion of the population with whom we have to deal; and I do not admit that this object is in any way inconsistent with the proper maintenance of British rule or the integrity of the British Empire. I do not think I can undertake offhand to answer my noble friend opposite with regard to the undertakings that were entered into by certain gentlemen in the Transvaal as to the raising of a loan. All I would say is this, that what I think was generally understood was that the loan was to be so raised and so secured as to form some material relief to the burdens of the mother country.
I have also been asked questions with regard to the details of the repatriation
30
scheme. That scheme is in course of being adjusted. You will easily understand that communications with South Africa are necessary before we can give our final decision, but I will undertake to lose no time in carrying out those communications. There is only one other matter to which the noble Earl referred, and on which perhaps I might say a word. I am obliged to him for not compelling me on another day to elaborate to the House the differences which we think we find in the Ordinance at present existing in the Transvaal and that which has existed for many years in British Guiana; but I would just say this on the matter. The idea of the Ordinance in British Guiana is essentially one rather of colonisation than of compulsory labour for a time only. A large number, as he well knows, of the Indian immigrants never go back to India; they remain in the Colony; and the conditions under which they there live were carefully looked into by an officer deputed by the Indian Government, who reported—
"The immigration system of British Guiana stands as an example to all the world of British fairness, honesty, and organisation in the beneficial control of a humble and dependent race. I had opportunities of seeing the many means by which they are raised from the position of raw, ignorant coolies into that of comfortable, independent settlers."
If the noble Lord will give me any assistance in the consideration of provisions of an Ordinance which would result in the same being said of the coolies imported into the Transvaal, I am sure I should be exceedingly glad to meet him.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like, on behalf of my noble friend the noble Viscount behind me, to explain to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies that we join in the regret that the Question on the Paper was not more specifically worded. What we want to ascertain is this, whether the noble Earl has behind him the support of a majority of the people of the Transvaal in the policy which His Majesty's Government are pursuing, of reversing entirely the policy adopted by their predecessors. What was the accusation invariably brought by noble Lords opposite against the late

31
Government when this Ordinance came into force? It was stated time after time that the late Government had not got the people of the Transvaal behind them, that they had not got their support, and were forcing on them an Ordinance which the majority of the people did not wish to have. To-day, when we ask His Majesty's Government whether they can give us any information as to resolutions or petitions received by them against the Ordinance we are told by the noble and learned Lord opposite that South Africa is a difficult country to get any real truth from.
LORD COLERIDGE: I referred to the Transvaal. I did not say South Africa.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: Well, we are dealing with the Transvaal at the present moment. I venture to think that when the noble and learned Lord sat on this side of the House and continually questioned me on the support that we received from the Transvaal, he would not have accepted as a reply the statement that we found great difficulty in getting accurate information from the Transvaal. When we passed this Ordinance we were twitted with not having a referendum. We reminded noble Lords opposite that Lord Milner had stated that a majority of the people of the Transvaal were in favour of this Ordinance. We pointed out that many thousands had signed a petition in its favour, that the Bishop of Pretoria favoured the proposal, that all the Free Churches had supported it, that the majority of the Johannesburg Town Council and the whole of the Legislative Council of the Transvaal were in favour of it, as well as the whole of the Chambers of Mines, and, I believe, every Chamber of Commerce in the Transvaal, while many other public bodies sent us petitions in its favour. We had, therefore, some ground for claiming that in introducing this Ordinance we had the majority of the people at our back. You now announce that you are going to reverse our policy. We ask from you, Have you got the same amount of support for the reversal of the policy as we had for its introduction? In this Parliamentary Paper there are only two references to
32
this matter. There are ten or twelve pages from Mr. Creswell, whose views we know, and at the end of the Paper there is a reference to those who are not altogether in favour of the Chinese Ordinance. But these are the only testimonies which the noble Lord has at present granted to your Lordships against the Ordinance.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: They are the only ones which I have received.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: The noble Earl, inadvertently, almost cast a reflection on the late Colonial Secretary and myself. I can assure him that we were no parties to burning petitions against Chinese labour. Indeed, I have no recollection of our receiving any. But we on this side of the House thought that since the noble Earl and his colleagues had come into office they had in all probability received as many petitions against Chinese labour as we had received in its favour. We are pleased to hear that none has been received. We only ask that he will lay on the Table when he receives them any formal petitions sent to the Colonial Office against the policy which the late Government laid down with regard to Chinese labour.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURAL AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, I have to express my thanks to noble Lords opposite for initiating this debate, as it gives me an opportunity of answering the questions which were put to me by the noble Marquess opposite, Lord Londonderry, during the last discussion. The noble Marquess asked me whether I regretted what I said in 1904, and why I did not denounce the native compounds at Kimberley in 1891. In answer to the first question, I have to say that I do not regret, withdraw or apologise for any single word I have said on the Chinese question in this House or out of it. As to the second question, Kimberley is in Cape Colony. Cape Colony is a self-governing colony, and I was not a member of the legislative assembly of that Colony. It was impossible, therefore, for me to make a protest there, but as soon as I had an opportunity I did call the attention of the House to the terrible state in which I

33
found the Kimberley compounds. I am glad to hear that the compounds and the treatment of the natives, and also of the Chinese, have very much improved, and I think we may take credit for a fair share of that improvement.
The noble Marquess the other evening asked the speaker who was to follow me whether he approved of the language used by the Prime Minister with regard to this question. He got his answer in the noble speech that was delivered by the Lord Chancellor, and, if I may be permitted to do so, I should like to supplement that answer. I happen to be the President of the National Liberal Club, which contains among its members the heads of every Liberal Association throughout the country, and a great many of the leading journalists of the kingdom. I have taken pains to ascertain the feeling of the Liberal Party generally, and one and all, without a single exception, assure me that the rank and file of the Party stand at the back of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and agree entirely with every word on the subject that has fallen from the lips of the Prime Minister. I might, perhaps, be permitted to ask in return, a question of the noble Marquess himself. I would put to him a question which was asked last year by the noble Marquess who then led this House with so much dignity and credit—Can he stand up in this House and say that the Chinese policy was in the best interests of the nation and consistent with the high ideals of British prestige and British statesmanship?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble Earl has alluded so pointedly to myself that I rise now to reply to his question. I agree entirely with the statement made by Mr. Chamberlain. This labour was necessary to develop the resources of South Africa. Had other labour been forthcoming I should have gladly welcomed it, but no such labour was forthcoming, and I say that it was thoroughly worthy of the British Government, in order to develop the country, to get the best labour possible under the circumstances. I should like to ask how the large body who the noble Earl says regard the conditions
34
of labour in South Africa as slavery reconcile that view with the remarks of the noble Earl the Colonial Secretary who said in your Lordship's House that he deeply regretted the use of the term slavery.
EARL CARRINGTON: I think my noble friend behind me has answered that question already. I now understand, from the noble Marquess's reply, that he at any rate considers that this Chinese policy, to which we have such great objection, is in the interests of the nation and consistent with the high ideals of British prestige and statesmanship. After all, this is not a question of language; it is not a question of substance; it is a question of principle. It is a question of right and wrong, and it seems to me that now we see how it was that the late Government went head over heels into what Lord Lansdowne so felicitously called "the Chamberlain abyss." We see how it was that the magnificent Conservative majority melted like snow before the sun. The late Government utterly failed to grasp the depth, the solidity, and the sincerity of the national feeling on this question.
It seems to be supposed that this agitation was a manufactured article, all froth and fizz and bubble, like some foreign wine, which in a short time became flat and without a vestige of sparkle or life. Well, that is indeed a most grevious mistake. Noble Lords are not particular in the words that they use as regards ourselves. We are called "blubberers" and "sloppy sentimentalists." In almost every speech that is made either in this or the other House or in the country, we are accused of misrepresentation. The term has been several times used that we have "traded on the best instincts of working people." That is what we are accused of. I quite agree that the best instincts of the working people are what we believe in, and it was the best instincts of the working classes which gave us our triumphant majority at the last general election. The instincts of the working classes all over the country told them that this Chinese labour was wrong, and the working classes both at home and in the Colonies called forth the

35
protest of an Empire against a British disgrace and an Imperial wrong
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE: My Lords, it is a remarkable fact that in debating this subject those of your Lordships who have had practical experience in the management of affairs in South Africa speak in one strain, while those who have not had that experience adopt the opposite view. This question, I venture to think, is one of very great importance. It is of importance not merely to the mining interest in South Africa—to the mine-owners and the shareholders—but to the welfare of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony generally. The welfare of the mines means the welfare of those two provinces. Your Lordships know very well that the farmers in those Colonies have had very hard times to go through. The seasons have been against them, and they have never had an opportunity yet to recover from the great ravages of the rinderpest that swept their flocks and herds in 1896. It is a great relief to them to be free from heavy taxes and all rates, which is their condition now; but, if the mines ceased to be profitable, the great sources of income to those provinces would be dried up. They have now the full advantage of free education, and the whole of the civil administration is paid for by taxes raised from the mines, which is the only direct taxation, I believe, there.
I quite agree, and your Lordships will agree, that it would be preferable, if sufficient black labour were forthcoming, to work the mines by that labour, but I think it has been shown that such is not the case. The Kaffirs do not really care for work in the mines, and I believe they only do so as a last resort. They much prefer work on the land, and so long as they can earn sufficient money to exist in that way they will not be tempted to enter the mines.
It is occasionally alleged that the Chinamen have been induced to go to the Transvaal under a misapprehension. I have in my hand a report from the American Consul-General at Lein-Tsin. It is of course an independent report, and it shows that before the Chinese leave
36
their native shores the most searching questions are put to them. The day before shipment the coolies are taken in lots of tens to the office of the Chinese Protector, and the conditions of the contract into which they are entering is fully explained to them. They are asked—"Do you go of your own free will?" and they are told that if anyone regrets having accepted the engagement and does not wish to go to South Africa he is at perfect liberty then to go home without any punishment being inflicted or his being required to pay any penalty at all. This evidence shows perfectly clearly that all the Chinamen who go to South Africa know exactly the conditions of the contract into which they have entered.
I hope His Majesty's Government will further consider this matter before they decide definitely to put a stop to the importation of Chinese coolies in South Africa. I hope they will take further expert evidence on the matter, and that they will remember that this question is one of the very greatest importance, not merely to the mining interest, but to the interests of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony as a whole, as on the welfare of the mines depends so greatly the speedy development of those Colonies.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies has displayed so much courtesy in replying to the numerous questions which have been presented to him this evening that it is with some hesitation that I put a few more. I will simply ask the noble Earl the Questions standing in my name on the Paper, and perhaps he will reply to them as categorically as possible. I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will grant a return showing (1) the number of Chinese labourers who have in each month since 1st January, 1905, been removed from one mine to another; (2) the number sent back to China; (3) the number who have returned to the Transvaal after repatriation; and (4) the total cost of these movements and upon whom the charge has fallen.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: My Lords, I can give the noble Duke some of the information for which he asks. With

37
regard to his request for the number of Chinese labourers who have in each month since January 1st, 1905, been removed from one mine to another, I am afraid we have not that information at present, but if the noble Duke would particularly like to have it we will get it from South Africa. With regard to the second and third questions, as to the number sent back to China and the number who have returned to the Transvaal after repatriation, I would refer the noble Duke to a telegram we received from Lord Selborne on January 23rd, which is on page 80 of the last Blue-book, in which he gives that information.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: It is not for the year 1905.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: It is the total number. Do you want them separated?
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: If the noble Earl has not the information, I will not press for it. I was anxious to know how many were repatriated in 1905.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: With regard to the fourth Question put to me by the noble Duke, as to the total cost of these movements and upon whom the charge has fallen, the Answer is obvious. The total cost of any movements must have fallen on the importers under their contract, except in cases where coolies may have returned at their own expense. I have no information as to those numbers, but I do not suppose they are of any consequence. If the noble Duke wishes it, I can get that information also.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: The noble Earl states that he has no figures of the coolies who have been moved from one mine to another. Under one of the Articles of the Convention it is stipulated that no immigrant should be moved from one mine to another without the approval of his Consul, so that there must be some record.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: It has not been sent home.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: But there must be some record in the Transvaal.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: I will get the information, if the noble Duke wishes.
LORD COLERIDGE: If the noble Earl grants this Return I hope he will distinguish the movements of Chinese labourers from one mine to another where both mines belong to the same group; for, while a labourer may not be moved from one employer to another, I understand he may be moved from one mine to another mine in the same group and under the same company. The Return without this distinction would be illusory.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.
LORD NEWTONrose to ask the Lord Privy Seal whether in view of the appointment of a Committee upon Parliamentary Procedure in another place, steps will be taken by the Government to secure due consideration for the rights and privileges of this House.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in returning to this somewhat well-worn topic, which is always associated by my noble friend Lord Rosebery with the advent of spring, I must admit that at first sight there is apparently no connection between a Committee upon Parliamentary Procedure in another place and what goes on here. It is evident, however, that if important changes with regard to the session are effected, and if no changes are made with regard to the method in which Bills are presented to, and considered by, this House, then our interests will materially be affected. Nevertheless, as far as I have been able to notice, our existence appears to have been so far entirely forgotten, which is perhaps not surprising if we reflect that during the last few years the existence of this House has been almost entirely ignored.
This unsatisfactory state of things has frequently been called attention to in this House, and I will not repeat those arguments with which you are by this time so painfully familiar; but I do not think anybody can fail to realize that during recent years we have gradually allowed ourselves to be elbowed out of legislative work, and we really seem to

39
be approaching a position which an unfriendly critic might describe as a sort of compromise between a high-class debating society and a registry office. As far as loquacity is concerned, there is absolutely no check upon us at all, except such as is imposed by modesty. We discuss all manner of things very frequently, and even this afternoon we have touched upon an immense variety of topics, more so than would have been expected from a casual study of the Notice Paper.
We occasionally go through the form of passing Bills, but after they have passed through all their stages in your Lordships' House they disappear and are swallowed up in the vortex in another place. In spite of this frruitless labour, I observe that the noble and learned Earl Lord Halsbury has already introduced and taken the Second Reading of two important Bills which are presumably before long to appear in another place, and I observed with interest that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack recognised in one of those Bills an old acquaintance with which he had frequently come in contact before, but which, for some unfortunate reason which he did not specify, had failed to find a place on the Statute-book. The measure which I allude to is the Bill relating to the prevention of corruption. As I say, there is practically no limit on our loquacity for the greater part of the year, but when our real functions begin and we have to consider Bills which are sent up to us from another place, when you might imagine that the functions of a revising Chamber would come into full play, we are practically told that the time for talking has come to an end and the registering period has arrived. We are practically obliged at the close of the session to confine ourselves to what I term purely registry work; and the climax was reached, I think, last session, when on the occasion of the introduction of the Aliens Bill time was so limited that the representative of His Majesty's Government was actually afraid to move his own Amendments. This is a state of things which has often been protested against, not only by unofficial persons like myself, but by the most rev. Primate, and more especially by noble Lords who are now
40
sitting on the Front Governmental Bench. But, in spite of all this somewhat profitless though indignant talk, very little has been achieved, and I can only point to two tangible actions on our part. We have during recent years passed two Resolutions. One of them was due to myself and had regard to the alteration of the time and the session, an alteration which I am glad to think there seems to be some hope of carrying out; and the other Resolution to which I desire to call your attention was one passed unanimously by this House as late as April of last year.
This was an extremely bold, if not aggressive, Resolution, what I might almost term a sort of blood and thunder Resolution, asserting that we would refuse to consider Bills unless we had time to do so. But what happened? The usual thing happened; and my noble and learned friend Lord James of Hereford, after we had disposed of the Aliens Bill under the ignominious conditions I have just mentioned, made a pathetic and indignant speech in which he pointed out that no less than sixteen Government Bills had been passed through this House, had gone down to another place, and had there been lost sight of, including several measures introduced by the Lord Chancellor himself. I remember that Lord James was specially scandalised by the fact that the ex-Prime Minister, when perpetrating his annual "massacre of the innocents," paid no attention whatever to, and never even mentioned, those luckless measures. The protest of Lord James of Hereford was echoed by other peers, and I believe that Lord Spencer—whom we all regret to see no longer in his place—remarked that he was as jealous of the dignity and importance of this House as noble Lords opposite. What he wanted to preserve was that this should not be merely a House for recording the proposals of the Government, but a real House of revision; and he declared that we were in great jeopardy of losing our powers of revision. As far as my personal opinion is concerned, I should be inclined to assert that that power of revision had already been lost, and we may possibly never recover it.
This dignified protest had barely ceased last session when the Unemployed Workmen Bill made its appearance. It

41
was introduced, rushed through its various stages, and, if I am not mistaken, in two more days or less the House was up. Everybody agrees that this is a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of things, but it may not unfairly be retorted upon us that we have ourselves to blame to some extent. If, instead of indulging in the luxury of these blood and thunder resolutions, which I an sorry to say we have run away from, we had every now and then thrown out a Bill or two our position at the present moment would be somewhat more satisfactory.
On the occasion of the first debate this session, upon the Address, the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition pointed out that we were at the present moment confronted with a very exceptional state of things. He pointed out that the Unionist Party was represented by an exiguous minority in another place and that in this House there was a large majority; and, more especially in view of the protests which had frequently been made by noble Lords opposite, it was clearly desirable that this House should be consulted in good time as to any important measures which may be contemplated. He asked for an assurance on this point which he did not obtain.
I suppose it would be hoping too much to anticipate that this assurance will be obtained by me. I am afraid we must recognise with sorrow that, so far as one can judge, the majority of the Members in another place are not animated with any particular sympathy for this assembly. It is possible, although it would be much to be regretted, that points of difference may arise between the two Houses. I need not say that personally I hope that these points of difference will not arise, but, if they do, it does seem to me most desirable that neither House should be entitled to complain of want of consideration on the part of the other; and for this reason, if for no other, I would venture to appeal to noble Lords opposite, now that they are in office, to act up to those professions which we have so often heard from them, and have regard to the honour and dignity of this House.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord TWEEDMOUTH),who replied in the absence of the Marquess of Ripon, said: My Lords, I can re-echo what fell from my noble friend Earl Spencer last year, and can assure the House that we on this side are in no sense less anxious than noble Lords opposite to maintain the dignity and to secure the privileges of the House. I am rather glad to think that my noble friend Lord Newton is afraid that the House will continue to be a mere House of registry. My own idea is that the principal reason why the House has been a House of registry during the greater part of the last twenty years is that for seventeen of those twenty years the great majority of this House have been in sympathy with the great majority of the other House and have, therefore, been only too glad to pass the measures that have come up from the other House. I have a recollection of 1894, when, I think, the House ceased to be a House of registry, and became a House of a very different character.
I do not think the appointment of a Committee upon Parliamentary procedure in another place is an occasion to discuss the business of your Lordships' House. It would be better, surely, in order to show our respect for the other House, to allow the other House to have its Committee and decide upon its procedure and then, if we found that our privileges were in any way infringed, to consider in what way we could approach the other House, and come to an agreement that our privileges should be properly maintained. I venture to think it is altogether previous to raise this question now; and, therefore, I can only say, on behalf of the Government, that should there be any danger, or should it be considered that there is any danger, to the privileges of this House, we shall be only too glad to consult with noble Lords opposite with a view to securing a proper arrangement for the benefit of this House.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I take it that so far as the substance of my noble friend's Motion is concerned there will be a general concurrence on both sides of the House that it is desirable that some steps should be

43
taken to put an end to a state of things which we have all so frequently deplored.
I venture to say in reference to the form of his notice that no Committee of the other House would be in a position to deal with the rights and privileges of this House. My noble friend's action is certainly opportune. Last year, your Lordships will recollect, we were all of one mind, but we all felt that no permanent and effectual improvement in the existing state of things could be looked for except with the co-operation of the other House of Parliament, whom we may regard as the predominant partner in such matters. After the discussion which then took place, I made inquiries from the Prime Minister as to the possibility of inducing the predominant partner to interest himself in the matter, but the result of my investigations was, I am sorry to say, not of a re-assuring character.
But, at the present moment, the position is changed. The predominant partner has interested himself of his own accord in the question of Parliamentary procedure. If, however, the Parliamentary machine is really to be put into good working order, that cannot be done except by some measure of co-operation between both Houses. Such co-operation may not be possible at this moment. I assume, however, from what the noble Lord opposite has said, that the matter is being considered, and that His Majesty's Government prefer a dilatory policy to one of prompter action. But it does occur to one, as a conceivable solution of the difficulty, that the question might be dealt with by a joint Committee of the two Houses, or, again, that any Committee appointed by one House should make it its business to inform itself as to the condition of things which prevails in the other, and as to the feeling of your Lordships upon the subject. We have the assurance of the noble Lord opposite that the matter will not be lost sight of; and I earnestly trust that he and his friends will be more successful than we were in bringing about a lasting improvement in the conditions Under which our business is transacted.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.