Sitting of 26 March 1906

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

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH.
  MR. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Crystal Palace Company Bill [Lords]; Kidderminster Gas Bill"[Lords]; Milford Docks Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 63 COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 63 has been complied with, viz.; Romford and District Tramways Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (PETITIONS FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION) STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH.
  MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petitions for additional Provision in the following Bills, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.: London County Council (General Powers) Bill. Metropolitan Water Board Bill.
  Ordered, That the Reports be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  Wallis' Divorce Bill [Lords]; Wandsworth and Putney Gas (Removal of Sulphur Restrictions) Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
  Great North of Scotland Railway Order Confirmation Bill. Read a second time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday.
  London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill. Petition for additional Provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
  Petition of the Mining Association of Great Britain, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND VALUES (ASSESSMENT AND RATING) BILL
  Petitions in favour; from Prestwich; and Swinford; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; from Accrington; Ashby Parva; Ashwell Thorpe; Ardwincle; Bath; Blymhill; Bolton; Castor; Catterick; Cheriton; Clifton (two); Cound; Crundale (two); Dibden (two); Elton; Elton and Longnewton; Frolesworth; Grinshill; Haltwhistle; Hesketh with Becconsall (two); Hollinwood; Kirkley; Leicester; Little Tew; Llanbalock; Leversal; Lower Hardres (two); Nenthead; Newton le Willows; North Brisley; Quidenham; Rockingham; Roggiett; Ruckinge; St. Dunstan's, Canterbury (two); St. Giles, Oxford; St. Leonard (Bucks); St. Leonard with Buckland Common; St. Peter and St. Paul (Lancashire); Salford; Shotton; Slapton (two); Stradbroke (two); Streatham; Sutton cum Upton; Tivetshall St. Mary with St. Margaret (two); Upper Clapton; Wadworth; Whitechapel; Winestead (two); and, Yealand Conyers; to lie upon the Table.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
  Petition of the Gamekeepers' Association of the United Kingdom, for the inclusion of gamekeepers; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  SEA AND COAST FISHERIES FUND (IRELAND) (NON-CONGESTED DISTRICTS)
  Account presented, for the year ended 31st December, 1905 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated 19th March, 1906, providing for the distribution of the General Aid Grant [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Return of the Areas, Population, and Valuation of Counties, Burghs, and Parishes in Scotland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLICE (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Forty-eighth Annual Report of His Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland for the year ended 31st December, 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CHARITY COMMISSION (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented, of Fifty-third Report of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  VAGRANCY (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
  Copy presented, of Minutes of Evidence taken by the Departmental Committee on Vagrancy, Volumes II. and III. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHTHOUSES, ETC. (LOCAL INSPECTIONS).
  Copies presented, of Reports to the Board of Trade by the Trinity House of Deptford Strond, the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, and the Commissioners of Irish Lights of their Inspection of Local Lighthouses, Buoys, and Beacons [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 92.]
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Copy presented, of Annual Reports of Proceedings under the Diseases of Animals Acts, the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Acts, &c. for the year 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TURKEY (No. 1), 1906.
  Copy presented, of Further Correspondence respecting the affairs of South Eastern Europe [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3538 to 3540 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Correspondence relating to Elementary Education in Ceylon [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PRISONS (RELIGIOUS CREED OF PRISONERS).
  Address for "Return showing the declared religious Creeds and Demoninations of the prisoners in each of His Majesty's prisons in England, Wales, and Scotland, on the 28th day of March 1906."—(Mr. Hay Morgan.)
  COOLIE LABOUR.
  Address for "Return showing (a) the names of the various Colonies or British Possessions in which indentured Coolie Labour is employed, and upon what work, distinguishing the class of Coolie, namely, nationality or tribe; (b) the number of such Coolies respectively; (c) the conditions under which the Coolies are housed or live, whether in fenced or enclosed areas or compounds, or otherwise, and how, stating also whether any and what restrictions are placed upon their individual liberty at times other than when engaged upon their ordinary daily labour; (d) what, if any, regulations exist and are in practice for the punishment of such Coolies respectively for desertion or misconduct, stating the nature of the offence and punishment, and if such regulations and practice have had the sanction of the Government or governing authority of the Colony or Possessions."— (Mr. Nield.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Admiralty Cruiser Programme.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, having regard to the stipulation of the Secretary to the Treasury that the Admiralty should take the earliest opportunity of informing Parliament of the change in the cruiser programme of 1904–5, Parliament was similarly informed of the change in the cruiser programme of 1905–6.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.)The change in the cruiser programme for 1904–5 was made public in the Explanatory Statement presented to Parliament with the Estimates for the following year. A similar course was adopted this year as being that most desirable in the interests of the public service.

  Aberdeen Railway Station.
  MR. PIRIE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the present condition of the Aberdeen railway station, part of which structure is in a state of complete decay and dilapidation; and, having regard to the recent accident at Charing Cross station, if he will cause inquiries to be made from officials on the spot in order to insure the protection of the public from a similar danger; can he also state what steps, if any, are being taken by the railway companies concerned, the Caledonian and Great North of Scotland, to complete the works sanctioned by The Aberdeen Joint Passenger Station Act, 1899, the powers of which expire in August, 1907; and can he see his way to enforce the carrying out of the works then sanctioned, in view of the necessity for increased station accommodation in Aberdeen, and the danger and inconvenience involved by the existing state of affairs.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I am aware that there is long-standing and general dissatisfaction with the condition of this station, and I have invited the observations of the railway companies concerned upon my hon. friend's Question

  815
  In their reply the companies state that the condition of the existing structure is not such as to involve danger to the public. As regards alterations, they point out that the widening of the railway between Ferryhill Junction and the station, and other portions of the works authorised by the Act of 1899, have now been completed. They add that the enlargement of the station, which could not be undertaken pending the completion of those portions of the works, is now under consideration, and that so soon as the plans have been adjusted the work will be proceeded with. After a reasonable interval I propose to inquire what progress has been made, and shall hope to be able to give a satisfactory Answer to a further Question, should my hon. friend find it desirable to put one at a later date.

  Argentine Railway Locomotive Orders.
  MR. HOUSTON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any official information to the effect that one Argentine railway company, whose shareholders are British and whose board of directors reside in England, recently placed an order for thirty locomotives with German manufacturers; whether he can ascertain the respective prices of the English and German manufacturers; whether there is in the possession of his Department, or that of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, a Report from a certain British Consul, stating that the German Government are giving a bounty to German locomotive builders to enable them to successfully compete with English locomotive builders; and whether he will lay the said Consular Report upon the Table; whether he can give any explanation as to the contradictory Report recently received from Berlin to that given by the said British Consul; and whether he will endeavour to ascertain the true facts, and lay them upon the Table.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I have no official information as to the purchases of locomotives by particular Argentine Railway Companies or the prices at which they are purchased. With regard to the reported German bounty on locomotives I can add nothing to my
  816
  previous Answer † until the completion of the inquiries now being made.

  S. S. "Saint Dunstan."
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state whether the s.s. "Saint Dunstan" signed on a crew at Hamburg during the present month; whether he can state how many of the sailors and firemen were Britishers, and how many were foreigners, and the wages per month paid to the sailors and firemen.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I have at present no information, either at the offices of the Board of Trade or with the Registrar-General of Seamen, with regard to any articles that may have been recently signed in the case to which the hon. Member alludes, but inquiries are being made; and, if the hon. Member will put his Question down again, I hope to be in a position to give him an Answer.

  Office of Registrar-General of Shipping and Seamen.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists in the office of the Registrar-General of Shipping and Seamen with the remuneration of the staff; and whether, seeing that a Committee of Inquiry was promised some considerable time ago, he will make inquiries into the matter and appoint a Committee at an early date to investigate their alleged grievances.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I am aware that more than one petition has been sent in to the Board of Trade by clerks in the office of the Registrar-General of Shipping and Seamen, with regard to their pay and prospects. No promise of a Committee of Inquiry has been made, but the matter has received, and is receiving, consideration.

  Sick Seamen's Transport.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Finance Department of the Board of Trade is
  † See (4) Debates, cliv., 350–1.

  817
  deducting from the wages of seamen who are left in hospital abroad the cost of their hospital expenses and passage home; whether he can state under what regulations or section of the Merchant Shipping Act Board of Trade officials are empowered to make such deductions from the wages of sick seamen; and whether he will give instructions for this practice to be discontinued.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The expenses referred to by the hon. Member are deducted from the wages of seamen who are left behind on account of unfitness or inability to proceed on the voyage, under Section 189 of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. The expenses are not, however, deducted if the cause of leaving behind is hurt or injury in the service of the ship within the provisions of Section 207. The practice is in accord with the provision of Section 189 of the Act of 1894.

  S. S. "Iquique"—Case of Joseph Rey.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the case of a steward, named Joseph Rey, a native of Mauritius, who joined the sailing ship "Iquique" at Newcastle, New South Wales, on April 23rd, 1905, and was discharged at Valparaiso on December 30th, 1905, in consequence of injuries received in his stomach whilst in the service of his ship; whether he is aware that this man was sent from Valparaiso to Liverpool, and that the Board of Trade Officials at Liverpool deducted from Rey's wages the sum of £6 to cover the cost of his hospital expenses and passage home; and whether, seeing that the Merchant Shipping Act provides that such expenses shall be borne by the owner of the ship, he will cause inquiry to be made into this case, and direct that the £6 shall be paid over to Rey at once, seeing that he is now destitute in London.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The information in possession of the Board of Trade is to the effect that Rey was not injured in the service of the ship. As, however, the hon. Member states that he was so injured, I will make further inquiries into the matter.

  Seamen's Records.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state why the Board of Trade have failed to keep at the General Registry and Record Office of Shipping and Seamen a register of all seamen, as required by Section 252 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894; whether he is aware that, in consequence of no such register being kept of the engagement and discharge of men employed on British ships, seamen are unable to obtain a true record of their past services on British ships; and whether, seeing (hat the cost of maintaining such a register of all seamen would not exceed £2,000 per annum, he will have the matter inquired into with a view to the establishment of such register.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I am informed by the Registrar-General of Seamen that he does actually keep at his office a register of all seamen, as required by Section 252 of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. It is possible that this register is not kept in the manner desired by the hon. Member, but two Committees have reported that the advantages to be gained by the establishment of a central indexed register would not justify its cost. The cost of starting such a register would be over £5,000, and it would take at least £1,800 a year to maintain.

  Irish Land Act Administration.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the pink schedules, Form 39, on the files in rent-fixing cases commonly show that the landlord has not made any improvement, that improvements have been made, and that the rent has been fixed on the gross value, including the improvements, on the ground that although the court valuer has ascertained and reported the improvements the tenant has not claimed them by schedule in court; and whether His Majesty's Government will enforce the law requiring all improvements to be deemed the tenant's until the contrary has been shown, and exempting the tenant's improvement from rent.

  819
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Land Commission that the pink schedules referred to do not commonly show the result which is stated in the first part of the Question. The Commissioners fix fair rents in accordance with the provisions of the Land Law Acts, and the procedure is regulated by statutory rules. As to the concluding part of the Question, I am afraid that I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on Wednesday last.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland will he arrange that in all Reports and Returns of transactions under the Land Act of 1903, when the land dealt with is untenanted, the Poor Law valuation shall be shown in lieu of yearly rent.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Land Commission inform me that untenanted land is, as a rule, purchased by the Estates Commissioners for division into parcels and distribution amongst the classes of persons referred to in Section 2 (1) of the Act of 1903. The tenement valuation is not always ascertainable even for the untenanted land so purchased as a whole, and when such land is divided into parcels it becomes necessary to have a revision of the tenement valuation to suit each parcel sold. This revision is not completed until after the untenanted land has been divided. It would not, therefore, be possible to show in the Returns the valuation in respect of the resales of such land in parcels.

  Irish Inland Fisheries.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now prepared to take practical steps to remove the obstacles which at present prevent the inspectors from holding inquiries on the subject of inland fisheries in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I think that some legislation on this subject is desirable, but I cannot at present say whether it may be possible to introduce such legislation this year.

  Gerahies Boatslip.
  MR. GILHOOLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether application has been made to the Congested Districts Board for a boatslip at Gerahies, Bantry, county Cork; and whether, in view of the fact that the fishermen in that district are hampered for want of accommodation to land their fish, he will have a slip provided for them.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) An application to the effect stated was received from the Bantry rural district council, and on the 16th October last the Congested Districts Board informed the district council that, if the Cork County Council should undertake the construction of a suitable landing place at Gerahies, the Board would consider what contribution they could make towards the work. No further communication has been received from the district council.

  Kilfinane Schools.
  MR. LUNDON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he say what is the number of children for whom, according to the standard of the Commissioners of national education in Ireland, accommodation exists in the female and infant schools at Kilfinane, county Limerick; what has been the number on the rolls and in average attendance for the last two quarters; is he aware that classes have been held during the winter months in sheds in the school yard; and that the manager has made an application to the Commissioners for a building grant for the erection of a boys' school so as to relieve the congestion; will he say what answer has been given by the Commissioners to this application; how long has the correspondence between the manager and the Commissioners on this matter been going on; and can he suggest any means by which a building grant for these schools may be obtained without further delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Commissioners of National Education that the Kilfinane convent

  821
  national school for female and infant pupils affords accommodation for 197 pupils, according to the Commissioners' requirements as to space. The number on the rolls on the 31st December, 1905, was 330, and the average attendances for the quarters ending 30th September and 31st December, 1905, were 284 and 283, respectively. The Commissioners are aware that classes have been held in sheds in the school yard on account of the insufficient space afforded by the school room. On the 14th August, 1905, the manager applied for a grant towards building a school house for boys, so that the present boys' school might be utilised to relieve the congestion in the convent school. On the 14th October, 1905, the manager was informed that as the existing funds for building grants were already hypothecated, his application could not be considered for the present. The need for additional accommodation was brought to the Commissioners' notice by the manager on the 9th September, 1904, and the Commissioners, having obtained and considered special Reports from their inspector, issued to the manager on the 16th December, 1904, the necessary forms on which to make application for a building grant. These forms were never returned by him. The question of the revision of plans for building school houses is under the consideration of the Irish Government and the Treasury, and will be decided with as little delay as possible.

  Magheradown Estate, Cavan.
  MR. YOUNG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether on the Magheradown estate, county Cavan, the Estates Commissioners have sanctioned the advances, and have vested the holdings in the tenants; and, if so, were the conditions as arranged by Captain Starkey, the vendor, carried out of reinstating the evicted tenants; and, if they have not been so carried out, will he explain why this has not been done.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that no proceedings for the sale of this estate have yet been instituted before them.

  Labourers' Cottages in the Newcastle Union.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Newcastle West District Council are promoting an improvement scheme under the Labourers Acts, and that only forty cottages can be built under it before the 1s. in the pound limit is expended, that thirty-two farmers whose names they are including therein have given consent to the district council to acquire the plots, and that the district councillors guarantee that eight more will give it; and whether, under these circumstances, he will say what is the quickest way to forward the scheme and the best way to reduce the expense of inquiries, and law and clerical business in connection with it, which in former schemes cost from £30 to £40 per cottage, or one-third of the amount paid for cottage and plot.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Local Government Board are aware that the Newcastle Rural District Council have under consideration a new improvement scheme under the Labourers Acts. The clerk of the council estimated that forty cottages with acre allotments, and forty additional half-acres for existing cottages could be provided within the rating limit. Consents appear to have been received from thirty-two occupiers in the case of the forty proposed cottages, and seventeen occupiers in the case of the forty additional half-acres, but unless the consent of the owners should also be obtained it will be necessary for the council to seek compulsory powers of acquiring the lands. If the consent of all parties can be obtained, the council can make what is known as a scheme by agreement, in which case the Board would be disposed to dispense with the usual advertisements, but the scheme must be inquired into, and a formal Provisional Order be made. By proceeding in this way the council would save the expense of advertising the scheme and of serving preliminary notices and copies of the Provisional Order on owners and occupiers; and, if all parties were agreed, the cost of the inquiry would also be largely reduced, as the

  823
  council would only have to prove the necessity for the additional accommodation, while the cost of arbitration proceedings would be saved altogether.

  Commitments for Contempt of Court.
  MR. MCHUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to proceedings in the Land Judge's Court in Dublin, on 9th March, when attachments had been issued against Thomas J. Smith, J.P., Joseph Mulligan, and Terence Fitzpatrick; whether he is aware that the three defendants named were charged with a criminal offence, and pleaded not guilty, and demanded, through their counsel, a trial in accordance with constitutional usage; and whether, seeing that there is no appeal from the order made sentencing the defendants to unlimited terms of imprisonment, and that under that order they may be kept in prison for life unless they plead guilty of a charge which they deny having committed, he proposes to introduce legislation to deal with the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I answered this Question on Tuesday last, when, in the hon. Member's absence, it was put on his behalf by the hon. Member for East Mayo.†

  Fair Rent Disabilities.
  MR. O'DOWD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that tenants, or their successors in title, who sub-let before 1881, and who own less than seven-eighths of their holdings, are not permitted to enter the Land Courts to have fair rents fixed; and, if so, what steps the Government propose to take with the object of removing this disability.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am advised that the statement of the law in the Question is quite correct. The policy of the Irish Land Acts has always hitherto been to confine the privilege of having fair rents fixed to occupying tenants, and to exclude middlemen from these provisions. Any alteration in the law, such as the hon. Member suggests,
  See (4) Debates, cliv., 226–7.
  824
  would involve a complete change in this policy.

  Land Commission Annuitants.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the average number of Land Commission annuitants sued twice yearly for their annuities; and whether he would issue instructions that proceedings be only taken once a year, with a view to avoiding legal costs by the present double proceedings, or if the necessary legislation to deal with the matter will be introduced.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Land Commission that it would not. be possible to answer the first inquiry without an elaborate investigation, which would occupy a considerable time. Every new purchaser is informed that if the half-yearly instalment of the annuity is not paid within fourteen days he will become liable to immediate proceedings, and that under no circumstances can an extension of time for payment be granted. Prompt payment of the half-yearly instalment is necessary, in order to provide for the payment of the half-yearly dividends on the stock created for the purpose of making advances for land purchase. The Answer to the final inquiry is, therefore, in the negative.

  Wexford Oyster Beds.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Wexford oyster beds have become almost exhausted, owing to the fact that they have, within recent years, been over-fished by foreign boats, as well as damaged by trawlers; and whether the Board of Agriculture contemplate taking any steps to have these beds relaid and protected.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction are not aware that any foreign boats have, within recent years, fished for oysters on the Wexford beds. Steam trawling is prohibited for a considerable distance off Wexford harbour, and the Department consider that no

  825
  material damage is done by sailing trawlers on the grounds where oysters exist in any number. The Department do not consider that relaying oyster beds in the open sea is likely to be attended with success.

  Roscrea Evicted Tenant.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Lucas, of Roscrea, who has rented a town park at Glen Albert, from which the tenant was evicted five years ago for non-payment of rent, has been prevented from grazing his cattle upon the land by the action of the former tenant; and whether steps will be taken to prevent such interference in the future.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am in formed that neither the landlord nor the tenant has made any complaint to the police as to the occurrence alleged in the Question, and that the local police have not witnessed any such ocurrence.

  Roscrea Castle.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that negotiations are in progress for the purchase from the War Office of the castle at Roscrea, King's County, for use as a bacon factory, and that this building dates from the time of King John, and possesses features of historical interest; whether he is aware that, owing to the imperfect drainage of Roscrea, the establishment of a bacon factory in the centre of the town would be likely to give rise to a dangerous nuisance; and whether, on antiquarian and sanitary grounds, he will take steps to prevent this project being carried out.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that there are two ancient castles at Roscrea, one founded in 1213 by King John, and the other in 1281 by Edmund Butler, afterwards Earl of Carrick. The Question appears to refer to the latter castle, which is now the property of the War Department and is in good preserva-
  826
  tion. I am informed by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War that certain persons interested in the establishment of a bacon factory at Roscrea have approached the War Office with a view to the purchase of a portion of the premises, and it has been decided to put the premises, exclusive of the castle, up for sale by public auction subject to conditions as regards access to and preservation of the castle. It will therefore be seen that there is no danger that the castle itself will be used as a bacon factory, and every care will be taken that the castle shall not suffer. If a bacon factory should be established in Roscrea, any question of sanitation which might possibly arise in connection with it would be a matter for the local authorities to deal with.

  Mr. Sampson Beamish's Estate.
  MR. EDWARD BARRY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. Sampson Beamish, Kilmalorda, Timoleague, having entered into an agreement of sale with his tenants, has been unable to obtain the consent of the Estates Commissioners to grant him the benefit of the bonus in case a tenant named Buttimar was excluded from the area of sale; and, if so, will steps be taken to induce the Estates Commissioners to omit this farm, without prejudice to the interests of the selling landlord.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that Mr. Beamish has lodged with them an originating application instituting proceedings for the sale of certain town-lands in the County Cork. As Mr. Beamish owns other tenanted townlands in the immediate neighbourhood, which he does not at present propose to sell, because he has not come to terms with the tenants, the Commissioners, in the exercise of the discretion conferred on them by Section 98 (1) of the Irish Land Act, 1903, have written to his solicitors stating that they are unable to see their way to declare the lands at present proposed to be sold to be an estate for the purposes of the Act, to the exclusion of the lands which the tenants have not yet agreed to purchase.

  Surgeon-General Roe's Estate.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many acres of untenanted land are owned by Surgeon-General Roe in the parish of Bourney, Roscrea, County Tipperary, and also how many in the adjoining parish of Clonmore or Killavinoge; and will he recommend to the Estates Commissioners the desirability of approaching the landlord with a view to acquiring this untenanted land for distribution amongst the people.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners have received no application in respect of the estate mentioned, and they have no knowledge of the circumstances or extent of the estate. They will make inquiry into the matter if an application should be made to them.

  Police Protection of Denis Connolly.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the need for continuing police protection to Denis Connolly, of Borrisnoe, parish of Bourney, County Tipperary, in view of the peaceable condition of this district; is this man constantly attended by two policemen; and will he state the circumstances under which protection was given to him in the first instance.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The police authorities inform me that it is the fact that this district is now in a peaceable condition, but that it is still considered necessary to give constant police protection in the case referred to. I understand that some local feeling still exists against Connolly, owing to proceedings in which he gave evidence some years ago.

  Tipperary Police Barracks.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the distance which separates the three police barracks of Gurtderrybeg, Clonnakenny, and Timoney, in the barony of Ikerrin, Roscrea district, County Tipperary; whether he is aware
  828
  that the two first of these are in one parish, and less than three miles apart; and can he state what reason exists for the continuance of Gurtderrybeg barrack, seeing that it is intermediate between the other two; and, furthermore, seeing that these barracks are situated in the midst of extensive grazing lands, is it as a protection to the people who take these lands on the eleven months' system, or otherwise, that this force of police is kept in such close proximity.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the police authorities that each of the three police stations named is distant at least four miles from the nearer of the other two stations. Two of these stations are situated in the same parish, but the districts attached to them extend into six other parishes. The extent of country to be policed from the three stations is nearly fifty square miles, and each of the stations is considered necessary. It is the fact that these stations are situated in a grazing district, but they were established before any difficulty in connection with the grazing system arose, and are not specially retained for the protection of grazing tenants.

  Irish Sub Commission—Mr Croasdaile.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Croasdaile, before being appointed Sub-Commissioner, failed to succeed as a farmer, and after repeatedly changing his system of farming for some years, ultimately let his land on the eleven months' system; and whether he can say when Mr. Croasdaile's term of appointment expires, and if it is proposed to continue his services as Sub-Commissioner.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Land Commission inform me that they have given Mr. Croasdaile an opportunity of replying to the suggestions made in the first part of this Question. Mr. Croasdaile states that it is not a fact that before being appointed an Assistant Commissioner he failed to succeed as a farmer; that the only change which he made in his system of farming resulted from an

  829
  outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia, which prevented him from offering his cattle for sale; and that he did not let his lands for grazing until after he had been appointed an Assistant Commissioner. Mr. Croasdaile's present term of appointment will expire on the 31st instant. I cannot at present make any statement as to how many and which of the existing temporary Assistant Commissioners will be re-appointed.

  Black Mountain, Galway.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the application made to the Estates Commissioners by James Flynn and Patrick Mullin, of Lisheenvalley, for a division of the Black Mountain, now given over to Mrs. Lopdell, he will explain why the lands are let at 1s. an acre to Mrs. Lopdell, seeing that Flynn, Mullin, and others made an offer to the Commissioners for these lands, subject to an annuity of 4s. per acre, and on the understanding that they would build houses and reside thereon.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they received no applications from the persons named, or others, for the land which is being sold to Mrs. Lopdell. This land, as I have already explained, was unsuitable for the enlargement of small holdings.

  Donegal Assize Grand Jury Panel.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why no Nationalists or Catholics were summoned on the grand jury for the County of Donegal for the last spring assizes; and whether he will state the respective percentage of Catholics and Protestants in that country; and will he take steps to have this state of affairs remedied.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) Grand juries are empanneled by high sheriffs under the provisions of the Grand Jury Acts. I am informed by the high sheriff of County Donegal that the grand jury at the recent assizes was empanneled in the
  830
  usual way, and that one Catholic was summoned, but did not attend. According to the census of 1901, the percentage of Roman Catholics in the county was 77·73, and of Protestants, 21·84. The high sheriff, however, informs me that though Catholics generally are in a great majority in the county, thos who are qualified by Statute for the grand jury form a very small minority. It is not alleged that the provisions of the law have not been observed, and the Government have, therefore, no power to interfere in the matter.

  Irish Education—Text Books.
  MR. BARRIE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if in the forthcoming revision of the syllabus for Irish national schools the Board of National Education will avoid making any change in the arithmetical courses for the standards, as when change are made so frequently, owing to the losses involved, publishers decline to revise their text books, to the detriment of educational facilities.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that they have already revised their syllabuses for the school year beginning on 1st July next, and that very few changes have been made in the arithmetical courses. In any revisions they may make, the Commissioners are influenced solely by the educational needs of the pupils, and they would welcome a less dependence by teachers upon the use of text books in national schools as a, desirable change.

  Labourers (Ireland) Acts.
  MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any advances have been made by the Estates Commissioners, or whether any applications for advances to trustees have been received by them, under Section 4 of the Land Act of 1903, for the purchase of any parcels of land for the purposes of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts; if so, will he give particulars of these advances or applications, and will he define the conditions under which advances are made.

  831
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received no application for an advance for the purpose mentioned.

  Royal Hibernian Academy Report.
  MR. BUTCHER: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state when the Report about the Royal Hibernian Academy will be issued; and what is the cause of this prolonged delay in publication.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I am informed that, owing to the calls upon the time of some of the members, the Committee has not yet drafted its Report, but I understand that further meetings will be held shortly.

  Boys and Firearms.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state approximately the number of men and boys, inhabitants of the United Kingdom, who are being, or have been, instructed in the use of firearms, including those trained in the Royal Navy, Royal Naval Reserve and Naval Volunteers, the Regular Army and Army Reserve, the Militia, Yeomanry, Volunteers, Cadet Corps, Rifle Clubs, and Royal Irish Constabulary; and whether he can give any estimate of the number of persons not contained in any of the above categories who have acquired the use of firearms without assistance from the State.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The right hon. Gentleman is doubtless aware than when he was at the War Office there were no statistics available to enable a reply to be given to such a Question. There has been no change in this respect since he left. Part of the Question also appertains to the Admiralty and the Irish Office.

  Barracks on Foreign Stations.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that The Military Works Act, 1903, estimated that £500,000 would be realised by the sale of barracks, which was to be applied to works on various foreign stations sanctioned under
  832
  the Act, he can state what proportion of the £500,000 has been realised; and whether, allowing for depreciation, it is believed that the entire sum will be obtained.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Under present circumstances it is not likely that the credits will reach the anticipated sum. As yet they only amount to a very small sum.

  Army Seven-year Enlistments.
  MAJOR SEELY: To ask the Secretary of State for War how many men were enlisted for seven years or over for service in the regular Army during the year ending June 1st, 1903; and how many of these men left the Army up to the present time, and for what reasons.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) During the period stated there were six enlistments for seven years and 2,088 for long service, twelve years. These latter are almost all boys. No information is readily available as to the number of these who have left the service, or of the reasons for their so doing.

  Ex-Sergeants and their Uniform.
  MR. McCRAE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether non-commissioned officers of the Line attaining the rank of sergeant will be allowed the privilege of retaining their rank and wearing uniform on retirement after ten years service, as at present accorded to sergeants serving their time engagement as instructors of volunteers.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This Question has received very careful consideration; but it has not been found possible to make the concession suggested by my hon. friend.

  Milk for the Army.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that condensed milk is supplied to the home forces as a substitute for new milk, and will he state in what quantities this is permitted; what quantity of new milk is allowed a soldier per day; are the contractors for new milk the direct producers

  833
  of same, and what is the price paid; and are the married quarters supplied by the barrack contractor, or how.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The supply of milk to soldiers' messes is made under regimental arrangements through the regimental institutes, the soldiers having a direct voice in the management of their own messes. I am not, therefore, cognisant of the details mentioned. The families of soldiers make their own arrangements for the supply of milk. No allowance of milk is made to a soldier except in certain cases for hospital use.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the tender form for the supply of new milk to the home forces is so arranged, by having other commodities bracketed with it, as to prevent the farmer or dairyman from becoming the direct contractor; and will he say what medical and sanitary supervision is exercised over the milk supplied within barracks in order to prevent typhoid or other infectious diseases from being carried in.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) In the rules for the management of regimental institutes it is recommended that milk be purchased direct from the producer, and there is nothing in the specimen form to prevent direct supply. The examination of milk and the inspection of the animals and premises from which it comes by a sanitary officer, selected by the principal medical officer, are expressly provided for in the terms of contract.

  Soldiers' and Sailors' False Characters.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will explain the reasons which make it necessary to proceed by separate legislation in the matter of sailors' and soldiers' false characters, rather than by amendment of the powers, in respect of false statements in connection with the entry into the naval and military forces of the Crown, conferred by the Army Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This Bill is identical with the Bill which was introduced last session. It is in-
  834
  tended to provide for the punishment of persons who cannot be dealt with by the Army Act, e.g., (1) a discharged seaman or soldier; (2) a man desirous of becoming a seaman or soldier; (3) a person who gives either of the above a false character or statement. I may add that the chief object of the Bill is to deal with the last class.

  Highland Crofting Rentals.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state the number of persons in each of the Highland crofting counties whose rentals do not exceed £4.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The facts desired are not at present at my disposition, but I am taking steps to ascertain the figures, and in due course a return will be presented to Parliament.

  Petersport Pier Road.
  MR. JOHN DEWAR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can state the reason for the delay in completing the road leading to the pier at Petersport, for which a grant has been promised by the Congested Districts Board.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The Congested Districts Board have given grants for £1,800, and for a further sum of £238, which was made on February 13th, 1905, on the distinct understanding that this is the final grant, and is given on the condition that the statutory road authority shall provide for all the remaining cost of completing the access road. The district clerk wrote on the 5th instant that his committee are surprised the Board has taken no step to resume the work. They were informed on the 8th instant that it is not for the Congested Districts Board but for the statutory road authority to construct the road. The grants given by the Board have been on the most liberal scale, and it rests with the road authority to complete the construction.

  Royal Naval College, Osborne—Cadet Examination.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many cadets have enter£d the Royal Naval College

  835
  at O borne, up to and including the examination in November, 1905, and how many of these cadets were the sons of persons: in straitened circumstances for whom he fees were reduced.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Of the 588 cadets who have entered the Royal Naval College at Osborne up to and including January, 1906, thirty-three were entered at the reduced rate of £40. The regulations limit the grant of this rate to the sons of naval and military officers and of civil officers under the Board of Admiralty.

  Glanders Outbreak at Oxford.
  MR. JOHN PHILIPPS: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to the outbreak of glanders among the Government Yeomanry remounts at Oxford, and can he say how many horses have been destroyed; whether any of these animals had been known to be in contact with horses brought from South Africa by the late Government; and, if not, how the outbreak of disease is accounted for.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) A serious outbreak of glanders has recently occurred at Wytham, in Berkshire, due to a horse which had been moved there from the Clarendon Hotel at Oxford. The horse was the property of the War Office and was used for Yeomanry purposes, but I am informed that it was never in contact with horses brought from South Africa, and there is no evidence whatever to show that is contracted the disease from other Army horses. Twelve horses have been slaughtered by the local authority, and we are making a thorough inquiry into the case in concert with the Army Veterinary Department. The measures already adopted have, I hope, prevented the further spread of the disease.

  Northampton Butchers' Association—Swine Fever Order.
  MR. CHANNING: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Board has received and considered
  836
  an application from the Northampton Town and County Master Butchers' Association, praying the Board, in view of the present restrictions on purchase of pigs for use in Northampton from other markets in Northamptonshire and adjoining counties, to so amend the Swine Fever Order as to grant a slaughtering licence available from these outside markets to the licensed slaughter-houses in Northampton; and whether the prayer of this petition will be granted by the Board.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) We have been in communication with the Northampton Butchers' Association on this matter. The Order requires no amendment to meet the difficulties referred to, which have arisen owing to a misapprehension of its effect. The matter has now been explained to the association and to the local authority, and I do not anticipate any further complaint.

  Convictions for Drunkenness.
  MR. SHACKLETON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the number of persons proceeded against and the number convicted for being drunk last year, and the number of licence holders proceeded against and the number convicted for permitting drunkenness in the same period.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) These particulars are given annually in Table XI of the Criminal Judicial Statistics, but the statistics for the year 1905 cannot be ready for a considerable time to come. Figures on this subject for the year 1905 will be included in the volume of licensing statistics which is in course of preparation, and will, I hope, be ready for issue before long.

  Irish Lighthouse Keepers.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Irish Lights Commissioners are contemplating any further reductions in the number of principal lighthouse keepers in their service; and, if so, is it intended to give any remuneration to

  837
  the keepers whose duties and responsibilities will be increased by these reductions, and who will not have the same chance of promotion.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that they have not formulated any definite scheme for the reduction of the number of principal lightkeepers in their service, and that they cannot therefore give the information asked for.

  Belfast Post Office—Promotions.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, with reference to the three vacancies which were recently created through the promotion of the former holders in the ranks of acting or relieving postmasters on the staff of the Belfast post office, to which persons were appointed who hold the position of eighth, twenty-third, and thirtieth on the local seniority list of the telegraph branch of that office, he will state the respective length of service of each, the mode of selection adopted, and the particular qualification that they possessed which led to their preferment, to the exclusion of their seniors, upon that list; will he also state the average length of service of the first seven on the list; and whether, seeing that a general knowledge of postal as well as telegraph duties is essential to the due performance of the duties of an acting postmaster, he will say where and when did the appointees, in this instance, acquire such knowledge, particularly in respect of the proper treatment of the various accounts of head post offices.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The respective services of the three sorting clerks and telegraphists at Belfast who were recently selected for the duty of taking charge of vacant offices are, Number eight, twenty years and eight months; Number twenty-three, sixteen years and ten months; and Number thirty, fifteen years and ten months. The average length of service of the seven senior men is twenty-nine and a half years. The three officers were selected, because, taking into account the general qualifications of all the
  838
  eligible officers, they were considered to be the most suitable for the duty.

  Appointment to Provincial Postmasterships.
  MR. SHEEHY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state the number of provincial postmasters appointed during the past ten years after announcement of vacancy in Post Office Circular, and without announcement of vacancy in Post Office Circular, together with the rank from which each promoted officer was drawn, the scale of pay of that rank, and the salary he received on promotion.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Member the information he desires, for considerable labour would be required to compile such a Return.

  Irish Rural Postmen.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the desirability of extending the concessions recently granted to rural postmen in Great Britain to rural postmen in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The general concessions granted under the Stanley revision to rural postmen apply to those in Ireland as well as to those elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The rates of pay vary according to the work which has to be performed and the cost of living.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Postmaster-General if it is intended in the new scale to include Irish rural postmen, who are at present on the scale 15s. by 1s. to 18s., in the new scale 16s. by 1s. to 20s., or are they, the Irish rural postmen, to be treated differently from the men employed in similar work in England, Scotland, and Wales.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) A certain number of rural postmen in Ireland are at present on the scale 15s. by 1s. to 18s., to which the hon. Member refers. The question of their pay is one that will, no doubt, come before the Committee on Post Office Servants.

  London Postal Superintending Staff.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that there does not exist a class of second-class assistant superintendents in the London postal service, although such a class exists for supervising purposes in the central telegraph office and in the large provincial offices; whether any memorial upon this question has been received from the London staff; and whether he contemplates taking any steps to place the London postal superintending staff upon the same footing as the provincial staffs and the London telegraph staff.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) A memorial on the subject has been received from the London staff and the question has been under consideration, but I do not think I should be justified in settling the matter, pending the Report of the Select Committee on Post Office Servants.

  Ballinagh Postal Arrangements.
  MR.VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that there is no postal delivery in the rural district of Ballinagh, county Cavan, attaching to Carrigan post office, on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and also that in some cases the country people have to come two miles to post their letters; and whether, seeing that in the adjoining districts there is a daily delivery, he will recommend the erection of a pillar box, and generally improve postal facilities in the district.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) As this Question has not been under consideration since 1903, I have called for a fresh Report on the subject. On its receipt I will communicate with the hon. Member.

  Civil Service Pensions.
  MR. CROOKS: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that women typists, Customs boatmen, clerks taken over in 1889 from the Submarine Telegraph Company, and certain other classes of civil servants, are allowed, under Clause 3 of The Superannuation Act, 1887, to count towards pension the whole of their temporary service which preceded
  840
  established service, and that in the case of retirement of abstractors of the senior grade a similar concession has in every instance been withheld, only half of their temporary service being allowed to count towards pension, he will make arrangements whereby the members of the abstractor class shall in future be accorded equal treatment in the matter of superannuation with that of other grades whose unestablished service is allowed to count in full.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) In exercising the discretion entrusted to the Treasury by Section 3 of The Superannuation Act, 1887, with respect to the reckoning of temporary service for pension, regard is had to the character and conditions of the service rendered. Each case or class of cases must therefore be considered on its merits. The temporary service of the abstractors referred to in the Question was rendered in the capacity of copyists, and the regulations governing their employment expressly stated that no service in this capacity, however prolonged, would confer any claim to superannuation. It was found, however, at the time when these temporary copyists were first promoted to be abstractors that a portion of their work had in many cases been above the level of what was ordinarily required of copyists; and it was accordingly decided, as part of the terms on which they were placed on the establishment, that half of their service as copyists should be allowed to reckon for pension. I see no reason for extending this concession.

  Second Division Clerks.
  MR. TIMOTHY DAVIES: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there are any recent instances in which the Treasury have withheld their sanction to the recommendations from responsible heads of departments for the promotion, on the ground of special fitness and merit, of certain of their senior assistant clerks (abstractor class) to the Second Division; and, if so, whether he can state the number of such cases; and whether, having regard to the fact that the senior assistant clerks are men of long service and experience to their several departments,

  841
  and that they are at present penalised in the matter of superannuation, to the extent of half their early temporary service being disallowed towards pension, he will see that Treasury sanction to their promotion, when specially recommended by their responsible chiefs, shall not be refused to them.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I can only trace, since the beginning of 1904, one case (affecting two assistant clerks) in which the recommendation of the head of the department has not been approved by the Treasury. It would not be possible to give a general pledge that all such recommendations shall be approved, as the Treasury has necessarily to exercise a discretion in dealing with the recommendations of heads of departments under Clause 15 of the Order in Council of 29th November, 1898.

  Cloudesley Charity Estate.
  SIR JOHN DICKSON-POYNDER: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether the Board, in dealing with the application of the London County Council for a Provisional Order to take a part of the Cloudesley Charity Estate for a school for mentally-afflicted children, are aware that the charity is the one large charity in Islington, that upon its grants other charities of Islington, including the Great Northern Hospital and the poorer churches, are largely dependent, and that the Order, if granted, would result in a deterioration in the value of the charity property, which could not be made good by money compensation; and whether he will consider the advisability of withholding his assent from this proposal.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am aware of the allegations referred to in the Question, and I have reason to hope that they may be exaggerated. But whether this is so or not, the Board, in considering whether a Provisional Order should be issued for the compulsory purchase of a site, have always held that any question as to the depreciation in value of surrounding property was for the consideration of Parliament when the Provisional Order Confirmation Bill is before it, and not for the Board.

  Belfast National Schools—Building Advances.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what sum of money has been advanced towards the building of national schools in Belfast within the past ten years; the names of the parties to whom the money has been advanced; and the amount in each case, together with the names of the present managers of the several schools.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The total amount of loans made to non-vested schools in Belfast during the past ten years is £4,651, and the total amount of grants made to vested schools is £23,455 4s. 4d. I will forward to the hon. Member a statement giving the particulars asked for as to these loans and grants. They would run to a length exceeding the limits of an Answer.

  Irish Creameries.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will state how many dairy societies, or so-called creameries, are in existence in Ireland, and the number of proprietary ones, and what quantity of butter is produced annually in them and the probable annual value of the same for each year for the past three years; what has been the total amount given in subsidies to those dairy societies since the establishment of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland, and are any subsidies still being given to them; how many of those dairy societies have paid an annual dividend to shareholders, and what has been the contribution from them to the revenue; and whether the Department is at present contemplating a scheme to supply those dairy societies with the daily reports of the butter markets of the world, and will private traders in the butter trade be also supplied with the same information.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) It is understood by the Department of Agriculture that there are over 800 creameries in Ireland, of which 340 are co-operative concerns, the remainder being proprietary and joint stock creameries. There is no information available which would

  843
  enable a reliable estimate to be made of the butter production of creameries or its value. No subsidies have been made by the Department to dairy societies. The Department will endeavour to procure information as to the number of societies that have paid dividends. No information is available as to the contribution from dairy societies to the revenue. A proposal was made that the Department should circulate among those creameries which would contribute to the expense of procuring the information particulars of prices at certain markets in the United Kingdom. It was decided not to take action in the matter for the present season, as the practicability of obtaining reliable information on the subject in the manner suggested was considered doubtful.

  Irish Assistant Teachers.
  MR. CONOR O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of assistant teachers in Irish national schools graded higher than third class, and their special qualifications to be so graded; and whether he will state the reasons why the assistant teacher in school No. 12,555, centre 10a, who was classed first-of-first under the rules in force previous to 1900, and who is a trained teacher, holding a first-of-first class diploma and having certificates in the following special subjects, Irish, drawing, singing, elementary science, kindergarten, and hand and eye training, and who, apart from performing her due share of ordinary school work, has conducted and conducts a singing class of about 100 pupils, without ever having had an unfavourable report, is not graded higher than third class.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Commissioners of National Education that there are eighty-eight assistant teachers in receipt of salaries of the first or second grade. In 1900, when the new system of payments came into force, these persons were in receipt of incomes, exclusive of residual capitation grant, of greater amount than the maximum limit of the scale assigned for assistant teachers. They retain such higher incomes as long as they remain assistants under the provisions of Rule
  844
  200 of the Code of 1903. The status of the teacher, to whom it is assumed that the Question refers, is determined by the rule quoted, which provides that assistant teachers in the service before the 1st April, 1900, who had incomes, exclusive of the residual capitation grant, less than the maximum limit of the scale of incomes assigned for assistant teachers, are eligible for increase of income by increments to the maximum limit of the scale. This teacher's salary was raised to the maximum limit on 1st April, 1903.

  Mountjoy Prison Governorship.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, as representing the Irish Prisons Board, whether he is aware that a vacancy exists in Mountjoy Prison for the position of governor; and whether he will see that effect is given to the principle of promotion in any appointment that may be made, and that, should there be a competent person in the service, a stranger will not be brought in over his head.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that there is no vacancy in either the governorship or the deputy governorship of Mountjoy Prison. The fact that the deputy governor is on temporary duty at another prison has probably given rise to the misconception. The claims and qualifications of subordinate officers receive careful consideration when appointments to higher posts are being made.

  St. Patrick's Day at Riverstown.
  MR. O'DOWD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that on the 17th March, St. Patrick's Day, a force of twenty extra police, under the command of District Inspector M'Govern, of Ballymote, was drafted into the district of Castlebaldwin, situate near Riverstown, in county Sligo, he will say by whose authority, or with what object this force was drafted into a peaceable locality, and the local band prevented from parading the public highway on the occasion; and will he say whether the presence of this force

  845
  will entail any expense on the ratepayers of the locality.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) On 17th March an extra force of twelve men under the district inspector was drafted into the district mentioned, by order of the police authorities, with the object of preserving the peace in connection with a farm which is under the control of the Court of Chancery. I am informed that the local band was not prevented from parading the highway. The cost of the extra police is not chargeable to the ratepayers.

  Irish Medical Officers' Salaries—Ballymahon Guardians' Resolution.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the passage of a Resolution by the Ballymahon Board of Guardians, asking to have Clause 6 of The Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, repealed in order to give the guardians a chance to effect amicable settlements with their medical officers when applying for increases of salary; and whether, as the present law places all increases as a full charge on the rates, some steps will be taken to modify this enactment immediately.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The attention of the Local Government Board has been called to the Resolution referred to. In reply to the concluding part of the Question, I beg to refer to my reply to a similar Question put by the hon. Member for South Cork on the 12th instant.†

  Major Blackhall's Estate.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will give the name of the assessor who, within the past six months, fixed rents on the estate of Major H. Blackhall, in the union of Granard, North Longford, and will he say whether this gentleman was himself a land agent; and whether, in the case
  † See (4) Debates, cliii., 876.
  846
  of future rent-fixings of the Commission, his services as an assessor will be employed.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The assessor referred to in the Question is Mr. J. D. Boyd, who is one of the permanent lay assistant commissioners. In Parliamentary Paper, No. 151, of 1902, Mr. Boyd is decribed as having been occupied in farming and as a land agent prior to his appointment. The Land Commission inform me that they have full confidence in Mr. Boyd's judgment and impartiality.

  Mullingar Asylum Committee.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the adoption of a Resolution by the Mullingar district asylum committee asking to have all asylum charges made imperial charges; and whether he can hold out any hope of this being done.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have received a copy of the Resolution referred to. The system under which the Government contributes to the maintenance of the lunatic poor is the same in Ireland as in England, and I cannot hold out any hope that special legislation for Ireland will be introduced.

  King-Harman Estate.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any representations have been recently made to the Estates Commissioners as to the sale of the King-Harman estate in the parish of Ballinamuck, North Longford; and whether, as this estate is in the main a congested estate with some 100 poor tenants living on it, the Commissioners will enter into negotiations with the landlord's solicitor, with a view to carrying through, on fair terms to the tenants, a sale of this property with the least possible delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners are unable to identify any

  847
  proceedings for the sale of the estate referred to. They will be prepared to consider any application in the matter which may be made to them.

  Swine Fever in Ireland.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many outbreaks of swine fever have been reported in Ireland for the six months last past; who was responsible for these reports locally; whether any special investigation took place on foot of reports; and, if so in what percentage, if any, were the reports substantiated.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) During the six months ended the 17th instant, 963 reports of supposed outbreaks of swine fever in Ireland were received by the Department of Agriculture. These reports emanated as a rule from the owners of the animals. In all cases the reports were fully investigated by veterinary inspectors acting for the Department. The result was that swine fever was found to exist in sixteen places only, the percentage of actual outbreaks to reports being 1·62.

  Earl of Lucan's Grazing Farm at Louisburgh.
  DR. AMBROSE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Congested Districts Board purchased, about three years ago, from the Earl of Lucan a grazing farm at Tallanbaune, near Louisburgh, county Mayo, and that the tenants have been paying rent to the Board for the past two years; can he give any reason why the Board has not, up to the present, striped this land amongst the tenants, who live on miserable holdings and for whose benefit it was purchased; whether he is aware that two tenants of the Board live on the island of Invertekel; whether the Board intend to take any steps to migrate them on to the arable land; and can he say whether it is the intention of the Board to give any of
  848
  this land to the grazier, who resides in England.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The fee of the lands in question did not become vested in the Congested Districts Board until May, 1905, whereupon notice to quit was served on the grazing tenant in occupation; and this notice will not mature until May next. When possession has been obtained the Board will lose no time in making arrangements for disposing of the land for the relief of congestion. Small holdings of tenants on any island on the estate will be enlarged if land is available. The island of Invertekel is not known. The Board have no knowledge of the grazier referred to in the Question, unless he be the grazing tenant already mentioned. All tenants in occupation of land belonging to the Board must pay rent until arrangements can be made for selling their holdings to them.

  Artillery Firing on Dartmoor.
  MR. LUTTRELL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the inconvenience to the farmers and general public which arises from the possibilities of artillery firing being practised on every day of the week in the summer months on Dartmoor, he will take steps to prevent any firing on Dartmoor on Saturdays.
  (Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Practice only takes place on Saturdays at Okehampton on very rare occasions, such as when bad weather has prevented practice on two or three days in the week. During last season it was carried out only on three Saturdays. I will see if it can be arranged that due notice shall be given whenever it is absolutely necessary to fire on Saturdays.

  Expenditure on British Garrison in Egypt.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary of State for War to what extent the Army Estimates for 1906–7 bear charges for a garrison in Egypt; and

  849
  what expenditure has been incurred there by Great Britain under the Military Works Loan Acts since the first Act in 1897.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The Army Estimates for 1906–7 bear charges of about £230,000 for troops in Egypt, including the Soudan. The total expenditure incurred in Egypt under the Military Works Loan Acts from 1897 to the present time is about £166,000.

  Royal Garrison Artillery.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the number of staff sergeants and sergeants in the Royal Garrison Artillery, and of the permanent staff of the Militia and Volunteers, who will be compulsorily discharged from the service on April 30th, and of the disadvantages that will be thereby imposed upon them, he will consider the advisability of amending Article 1160 of the pay warrant in the sense of substituting eight years' continual service in the rank of sergeant, immediately preceding the completion of twenty-one years' service, for twelve years' continual service in that rank, as now required.
  (Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Owing to the number of non-commissioned officers in the senior ranks of the Royal Garrison Artillery who were ineligible for service abroad through length of service, it was decided to call upon all who were forty years of age and had completed twenty-five years' service to retire upon pension. To avoid any hardship, all those who so desired were given four months' notice in lieu of the usual one month's notice laid down in the regulations for soldiers with more than twenty-one years' service. It cannot, therefore, be admitted that these men were suffering under any disadvantage, and no amendment of the pay warrant is considered necessary.

  Connaught Rangers' Training.
  DR. AMBROSE: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can give any
  850
  reason why the Connaught Rangers are taken out of Castlebar for annual training to a town in county Galway.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This Militia battalion is under orders to train in brigade with the two other battalions of its territorial regiment in county Galway. These arrangements are made by the general officer commanding-in-chief.

  Foreign Naval Budgets.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether such comparison o British expenditure as have recently been made by the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary to the Admiralty with the naval and military budgets of France, Germany, and the United States, are on a fair basis having regard to the different systems of preparing financial accounts; and whether if there are any limiting considerations, he will cause inqu ries to be made and a Return to he issued as to their nature.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell Bannerman.) Comparisons of British expenditure with the military budgets of France, Germany, and the United States can be very general only, and any comparisons that have been made have been of this nature. For many reasons more detailed comparison is impracticable, and, owing to the entirely different conditions between our own and Continental Armies, the preparation of a Return, such as my hon. friend suggests, would entail a great expenditure of labour and would serve no good purpose.

  House of Commons Procedure—Private Members' Privileges.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELL: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can say on how many days in each of the four years preceding the adoption of the rule providing for the ordinary meetings of the House at Two o'clock the House did meet at that hour on Tuesdays and Fridays and on any other days, and on how many days private Members were prevented from exercising their privileges in each of those years.

  851
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell Bannerman.) I am informed that the

  Days on which the House met at Two o'clock and the Privileges of Private Members were taken from them at the Morning Sitting.

  Session.

  Date.

  Day of the week.

  Total number of days.

  1898

  29th March

  Tuesday

  3 Tuesdays.

  5th April

  *Tuesday

  19th April

  Tuesday

  1899 (I. and II.)

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  1900 (I. and II.)

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  1901

  2nd April

  *Tuesday

  6 Tuesdays.

  23rd April

  Tuesday

  30th April

  Tuesday

  7th May

  Tuesday

  14th May

  Tuesday

  21st May

  Tuesday

  * Motions for the Adjournment at Easter.

  Other Days on which the House met at two o'clock, but the privileges of private Members were not taken from them. 1898, Nil; 1899, Nil; 1900, Wednesday, 28th February (Ash Wednesday). 1901, Nil.

  London Postal Service Auxiliary Labour.
  MR.COOPERTo ask the Postmaster-General whether he will give the numbers of acting, temporary, casual, and supernumerary sorters and auxiliaries in the London postal service; and whether, in view of the condemnation of auxiliary labour by the Tweedmouth Committee, he can state whether any, and, if any, what steps have been taken since 1902 to abolish this form of labour.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The number of acting, temporary, casual, and supernumerary sorters and un-established postmen employed for fulltime duties in the London postal service
  particulars which the hon. Member desires are as follows:—
  is eighty-three. Their number is gradually being reduced, The numbers of auxiliary sorters and auxiliary postmen are 545 and 1,964, respectively; but they are being reduced in numbers and replaced, where practicable, by assistant postmen, who will be absorbed in due course into the established ranks. Steps have been and are still being taken to reduce the amount of auxiliary labour. The Tweedmouth Committee, however, fully recognised the impossibility of dispensing entirely with the services of auxiliary postmen.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    British Granite in Naval Works.
    MR. HAY MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it has been the custom of His Majesty's Government in the past to use only British granite in the construction of naval works.
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. LAMBERT,): No, Sir; so far as I have been able to ascertain it has not been the custom to limit contractors to the use of British granite only in the construction of naval works.
    MR. HAY MORGAN: Have the Government decided what is to be their future policy in the matter?
    MR. LAMBERT: It is not proposed to reverse the action of our predecessors in this matter.

    "Ragging" at Aldershot.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War a question of which I have given him private notice—whether a young officer of the Scots Guards now stationed at Aldershot has been set upon by his brother officers, who tore off his clothes, smeared him with motor oil, and covered his hair with jam; whether the young man is now suffering from a nervous breakdown brought on by this brutal conduct, to which he was subjected because he could not afford to live in the expensive style usual in the regiment; whether the warning of Lord Roberts with reference to military ragging is still in force; whether the officer commanding the regiment has been called upon for an explanation; whether an inquiry will be held; whether it will be open to the public; and whether, having regard to the importance of the case and the fact that the Judge Advocate-General is no longer a political officer responsible to the House for the conduct and management of courts-martial, the advice and assistance of the Law Officers would be obtained.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): What has happened is under judicial investigation, and, therefore, I cannot assume that the facts are as the hon. Gentleman has stated; but I will tell him how matters stand. The occurrences in question, whatever they were, took place on the 15th inst., late at night. The first I heard of it was on March 19th. I at once directed a preliminary inquiry, which has taken place. I have the Report, and that Report is under consideration; and I propose to direct that a full Court of
    854
    inquiry should be held and a most searching investigation made. Four officers who are under suspicion of being implicated in what took place are under arrest. All other officers belonging to the regiment have been directed to curtail their leave and return at once. As to the procedure, that must be matter for consideration, but I propose to provide for all parties having opportunity for being fully heard when the matter is investigated. I do not think it will be necessary to bring in the Law Officers of the Crown, because we have the machinery for full inquiry under the Army Discipline Act.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: May we understand that this full inquiry, which, I understand, will be private, will not preclude proceedings being taken afterwards, should they be considered necessary, by court-martial?
    MR. HALDANE: As to the proceedings, I can only tell the hon. Member that it will be a searching inquiry conducted according to judicial form, and I will take care that everybody concerned shall have the opportunity of being heard and of putting his case.

    British Indian Traders in the Transvaal.
    SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether British Indian traders in the Transvaal are excluded from the use of certain train services, and are restricted in their use of the Johannesburg electric trams; whether the special registration fee of £3, and the regulations prohibiting ownership of land, are still enforced against them; and whether, in the Orange River Colony, the law prohibiting the entry of British Indian subjects, except for domestic service, is still maintained; and, if so, what steps it is proposed to take in the interest of British Indian subjects.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The Secretary of State understands that certain trains by which, as a matter of fact, coloured persons seldom travel are to be reserved for white people, but that special arrangements will be made on application for well-known coloured people desiring to travel by

    855
    them. He also understands that restrictions have been found unavoidable in regard to their use of the Johannesburg electric trams. The registration fee of £3 and the prohibition of ownership of land, which are in accordance with the Law 3 of 1885, are being enforced. In the Orange River Colony the law referred to has not been as yet amended. The grievances of Indians in the Transvaal have, I need scarcely say, the cordial sympathy of His Majesty's Government, who will make every endeavour to obtain their redress, but, as I pointed out in debate on the 28th of February†, we lie under difficulties in dealing with such questions in Colonies which enjoy, or are about to receive, responsible government.

    British Indian Subjects and the Transvaal and Orange River Constitutions.
    SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the scheme, which is now under the consideration of the Government, for granting a representative and responsible constitution in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony, will provide for giving adequate representation to British Indian subjects of respectability and position, who have settled or may hereafter settle in these Colonies.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I would remind the hon. Member of my reply to the hon. Member for Preston on the 15th instant,‡when I informed him that the proposal to extend even the municipal franchise to coloured British subjects was abandoned in 1903, and that it was then asserted by the opponents of any form of native franchise that the proposal was a breach of the spirit, if not of the letter, of the conditions of surrender.
    SIR H. COTTON: Am I to understand that the expression "natives" in the Treaty of Vereenining includes British Indians?
    MR. CHURCHILL: The expression "natives" has frequently been deemed to include natives of all the coloured races of Asia, Africa, and America, and while I am not aware that any special significance of that character is attached to it in the Treaty of Vereenining, it would be
    † See (4) Debates, clii, 1238.
    ‡ See (4) Debates cliii. 1400.
    856
    open to anyone hostile to the native franchise to contend that any other construction would be a breach of the treaty.
    MR. CAIRNS: May I ask whether the Under-Secretary will direct his attention to a speech made by Lord Milner in March or April, 1903, at a Conference at Johannesburg, when the question of the municipal franchise was being discussed, and to the recommendation of Lord Milner upon. the subject in that speech?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that Question.

    Chinese Labour in South Africa
    MR. FULLERTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will cause instructions to be issued to the British consular agents in China, directing them to resume their authority, and cancel the power given to the Transvaal Emigration Agency, so far as such power relates to those Chinese coolies not yet deported, but to whom licences were issued, from the 12th to the 18th November last.
    MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. The policy of His Majesty's Government has already been very fully stated to and accepted by Parliament, and it does not include any interference with the fulfilment of licences issued under the late Administration.
    MR. BELLOC: Have the law officers of the Crown advised the Crown that it would be illegal to prevent the importation of these coolies from China? Would it be a breach of contract on our part?
    MR. CHURCHILL: The decision of His Majesty's Government in regard to those licences was a Cabinet decision taken after full consultation with high legal authorities.
    MR. BELLOC: Did they say we should be breaking the law if we prevented our Consuls in future allowing the Chinese to leave?
    MR. CHURCHILL: Yes. It was, I understand, the opinion of the Lord

    857
    Chancellor and others who were consulted that to refuse to allow effect to be given to the 15,000 licences already issued would constitute a moral breach of contract, and that, had it involved a private individual, the contract would have been enforceable at law.
    MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps, if any, have been taken to inform the Chinese labourers in the Transvaal that they are free to return to China should they so desire.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Chinese labourers have not been so informed as yet, as the mode of procedure is still under discussion with Lord Selborne, and some delay has been caused by his absence on tour from Johannesburg. If the hon. Member would repeat his Question after another week, I should hope to be in a position to give him the information he desires.
    MR. LIDDELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if the offer of His Majesty's Government to repatriate the Chinese coolies employed in the Transvaal Colony under the Chinese Labour Ordinance, at the expense of the Imperial Exchequer, has been communicated to the coolies; if so, when was the communication made; and if the Colonial Office has received any, and, if so, how many acceptances from the coolies of the offer of His Majesty's Government to secure their free passages to their homes in China.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The offer of His Majesty's Government has not yet been communicated to the coolies. The exact form of procedure is still under discussion with Lord Selborne.

    Criminal Procedure Code for South Africa.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies on what ground chapter 33 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure has been excepted from the orders in council extending the operation of that code to British East Africa.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Had the chapter referred to by the hon. Member not been
    858
    omitted, cases of serious crime by European British subjects would have had to be tried at Bombay. A draft ordinance is now in course of preparation dealing comprehensively with all the courts of the East Africa Protectorate, and when this has become law it is proposed to replace the Indian Procedure codes by similar codes founded on their provisions and enacted by local ordinance.

    Transvaal Compensation Commission.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Transvaal Compensation Commission has completed its labours; how many claims for compensation were investigated, and what was the total amount of those claims; and what amount of compensation has been awarded.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I understand that the Commission has completed its labours, and the Secretary of State is awaiting the receipt of its report.

    British East African Settlers' Grievances.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any complaints have reached him as to the forfeiture of land in East Africa; and whether he will take the earliest opportunity of introducing a certain amount of representative government into the territories of East Africa and Uganda, so that all complaints of a similar nature would get consideration before other persons than officials, and that His Majesty's Chief Commissioner could receive advice on measures necessary for the development of the country, and could have brought before him in a practical form any grievances from which the settlers at present suffer.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Two or three complaints as to forfeiture of land in East Africa have been received in the Colonial Office. One of these was received a few days ago from the hon. Member and is being investigated. It is not proposed to introduce representative government at present, but the Secretary of State is considering the question of introducing some form of Crown Colony government in connection with an address from the Colonist Association of British East Africa on the subject. In

    859
    the meantime any suggestions for the development of the country will receive full consideration from the High Commissioner and the Secretary of State.

    Indian Army on the North-West Frontier.
    SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is in a position to lay before the House, either in the form of a Return or otherwise, a statement showing the principal items of expenditure, especially in regard to the acquisition of land, the laying down of cantonments, and the construction of barracks, which have been sanctioned for the purpose of reorganising and distributing the Indian Army on the North-West Frontier of India, and are estimated to cost about £9,000,000; and whether he is able to furnish any details of the special measures which have been independently sanctioned for the same purpose, and are estimated to cost a further sum of £2,000,000.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. JOHN MORLEY,): I would refer my hon. friend to the reply given by me on March 22nd † to the hon. Member for the Walworth Division of Newington.

    Tibet.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has any information as to the effect of the reception of the Tashi Lama in India in promoting a feeling of cordiality on the part of the people of Tibet towards the British.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: I have received no report on the subject. I am informed that the visit to India, which was a ceremonial one, passed off satisfactorily.

    Indian Coolie Labour for the Transvaal.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if negotiations are in progress with regard to the introduction of Indian coolies to the Transvaal.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY; Not that I am aware of.
    †See (4) Debates, cliv., 577.

    Arrest of a British Subject in Russia.
    MR. LAIDLAW: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in communication with the Russian Government in respect of the arbitrary arrest, imprisonment, and subsequent expulsion from the country of Mr. Charles Webb, a British subject, resident in Russia; and if he will now give the Russian Government's explanation of thus treating a British subject.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RUNCIMAN,) (for Sir EDWARD GREY): The matter is receiving the careful attention of His Majesty's Government. They are in communication with Mr. Webb for the purpose of obtaining from him a full statement of the circumstances of his case.

    Higher Division Appointments in the Civil Service.
    SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, pending a decision being arrived at by the Treasury, all appointments of last year's candidates for the Higher Division of the Civil Service have been suspended at the Admiralty by Treasury instructions; and, if so, what is the number of vacancies.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): Under the 1905 reorganisation of the Admiralty clerical staff, certain clerks of the Higher Division became redundant in that Department and are in process of absorption. I am not aware that any vacancies now exist on the authorised Higher Division establishment, but in March, 1905, the Treasury asked to be consulted before any fresh appointments were made to the upper staff.

    Income Tax
    MR. GROVE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can say what would be the addition to the revenue if an increased tax of 3d. in the pound were made on all incomes exceeding £2,000 per annum.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. McKENNA,): The Board of Inland

    861
    Revenue have no data for forming such an estimate.

    Afforesting Waste Crown Lands.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what steps, if any, have been taken to give effect to the suggestion of the Departmental Committee on Forestry in 1902, that the Woods and Forests Department should plant suitable waste lands under the control of the Crown or over which the Crown exercises manorial rights.
    MR. MCKENNA: The greater part of what are called waste lands belonging to the Crown are in Wales and are, generally speaking, at too high an altitude and much too exposed for planting. For these reasons and especially owing to the fact that rights of common exist over the whole of the waste lands over which the Crown exercises manorial rights, it has not been found practicable to plant any of them, except in one instance in Merionethshire, where the Crown acquired the adjacent farms. In that case about twenty-two acres of the waste lands have been planted, in addition to portions of the adjoining farm lands, amounting in all to about 105 acres. This, of course, involved giving notice to quit to the tenant. It is in contemplation to plant about another sixty-one acres of waste as a further experiment. The altitude is over 1,000 feet above the sea.
    LORD BALCARRES: Can the hon. Gentleman say what the altitude is, in the opinion of the Treasury, above which it is considered unsuitable to plant in the British Islands?
    MR. MCKENNA: That would depend on the latitude.
    MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: Is it on account of the altitude that planting is not going on?
    MR. MCKENNA: That is so.
    MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: A thousand feet?
    MR. MCKENNA: In Wales.

    Sunday Trading.
    LORD R. CECIL: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Hoxton Division
    862
    of Shoreditch, I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when he will be in a position to make an announcement about the Joint Committee of both Houses to which the question of Sunday trading will be referred.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I hope to be able to announce the names this week.

    Aliens Act Administration.
    SIR W. EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that at a meeting of all the members of the Immigration Boards, held recently at the Guildhall, it was decided to recommend the Home Office to reduce the number of passengers constituting an immigrant ship from twelve to five, in consequence of the evasion of the Act which had taken place under the twelve minimum, he will state for what reason the number has now been raised to twenty.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: Is it not the case that the alleged facts on which this Question is based are not true?
    MR. GLADSTONE: The members of the panel of the London Immigration Board at the meeting referred to considered the question of the number of alien steerage passengers which should constitute a ship an immigrant ship, but did not make any recommendation on the subject. The order restoring the number twenty, originally fixed in the Act, was made in the exercise of the discretion conferred upon me by the Act. My object in making it was to facilitate the Cross Channel traffic, about which complaints had been received from the French Government, and to ease certain difficulties in the working of the Act which had been experienced at non-immigration ports.

    Returns of Immigrants.
    SIR W. EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the monthly Returns of immigrants have not been published; and whether he will furnish a Return showing the number of immigrants arriving in the port of London during

    863
    January and February, 1905, and January and February, 1906.
    MR. GLADSTONE: As I have already stated, the monthly Returns of alien immigration from the Continent have been discontinued because the Act under which the information was collected has been repealed. I have under consideration the best method of publishing the information collected under the Act of last session. In answer to the last paragraph I can give the following figures:— The Returns for January and February, 1905, show 4,075 and 3,323 alien passengers as having arrived in London from the Continent in those months respectively, or a total of 7,398, including a certain number of persons en route for other countries, and of seamen. In the present year the figures collected under the new and more complete system show totals for January and February of 4,208 and 3,626, or, together, 7,834. Of these, 850 are known to have gone out of the country, 246 are shown in the Returns as proceeding out of the country, and fifty-five had return tickets to a foreign country; while 109 were seamen and eighty-six were refused leave to land. If these figures are deducted, a total of 6,488 for the two months is left. Of this total, I ought to mention, more than half consists of first and second class passengers. Such passengers were not included in the Returns of previous years, and no information as to them is now available.

    Release of Mr. Barmash.
    SIR W. EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state why a foreign convict named William Barmash, who was sentenced to ten years' penal servitude in December, 1902, has been released; and whether he is to be allowed to remain in this country.
    MR. GLADSTONE: This man's sentence was reduced by my predecessor from ten years to five years on the strong recommendation of the judge. On a review of all the circumstances of the case I have thought it right to extend further lenience by releasing Barmash on licence six months earlier than would otherwise have been the case. It is not, in my opinion, expedient to state the
    864
    grounds for the action of my predecessor and myself.
    SIR W. EVANS GORDON: What is the answer to the last part of the Question?
    MR. GLADSTONE: He does not come under the Aliens Act.

    British Emigrants.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can give the numbers of emigrants of British origin who have been assisted by the various emigration committees to leave this country during the present year, and if they equal in number the aliens who have come into this country during the same period.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I regret that I am unable to give the figures desired.

    International Exchange of Bonds and Securities.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can, in the Board of Trade Returns from time to time, or at least once a year, give a return or an estimate of the amount of the export and import of bonds and securities between this country and other foreign countries.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): This matter has been frequently considered, but I regret that I can hold out no hope that it will be found practicable to take the course suggested, as there are no means of forming such an estimate as is proposed.

    Gas Meter Testing.
    MR. S. COLLINGS: I beg to ask the President the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Sales of Gas Act, 1859, prescribes the method of testing gas meters, but makes no provision for testing the indices of these meters, although the largest amount of errors is likely to arise in such indices; that the Astronomer Royal reported to the Treasury in 1860 that this omission rendered the Act nugatory and useless; that a Select Committee of the House reported in favour of amending the Act; that in 1870 the Standards Commission

    865
    also reported that the Act should be amended and the Board of Trade given power to make regulations; and that the Board of Trade prepared the draft of an amending Bill in 1882; and whether the Board of Trade is now prepared to introduce a Bill, or to take any other measures to remedy the present state of the law as to testing gas meters.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Act in question does not specificially lay down the method of testing the indices of gas meters, but it does require that no meter shall be stamped unless it registers correctly within certain limits. I am aware that, as stated by my hon. friend, attention has from time to time been called to the absence of precise directions as to the testing of indices, but the Board of Trade have not received any complaint on this point for some years past. I shall, however, be happy to look further into the matter, and to consider whether any steps seem necessary.

    Inspectors of Electric Railways.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state whether all the Board of Trade inspectors, deputed to report on railways or tramways worked by electric power, are fully-qualified electrical engineers.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Statutory inspectors of railways and tramways to be worked by electricity are made, so far as the electrical equipment is concerned, by the Board's electrical adviser, who is a fully-qualified electrical engineer, and all questions regarding the use of electrical energy for the working of such lines are referred to that officer.

    Southport Express Disaster.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the evidence produced at the inquiry held on behalf of the Board of Trade into the accident to an electric express at Hall Road Station, Southport, in July last, shows that several minutes, probably four, elasped before the live rails were rendered dead; and will he consider the expediency of requiring railway companies using electrically-charged rails to adopt a system under which the
    866
    live rails may be at once rendered dead in case of accident.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am aware that in the case of the accident in question, the electrically-charged rail was not rendered "dead" until about four minutes after the accident, and this is clearly stated in the Report of the inspecting officer. No injury appears to have resulted in this case from the live rail, but the station-master at Hall Road should have at once made use of the telephone provided from his station to the power stations, and had he done so, the current would have been cut off in a few seconds. I understand that iron bars are carried on all the electrically-worked trains on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, and are supplied to the station-masters for the purpose of setting up a short circuit and thereby blowing out the circuit breakers at the electrical sub-stations in cases of emergency.

    British Flour Mills.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that in our imports of corn from abroad flour has, during the past six months, largely taken the place of wheat; and whether he attributes to this cause the fact that our flour mills are now mostly running short time.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The imports of wheatmeal and flour (in equivalent of grain) during the last six months formed 23 per cent, of our total imports of wheat and flour. This was a considerable increase compared with the previous year, when the corresponding percentage was fourteen, but it shows a decline compared with the average of the same periods of the previous five years, when the percentage of flour was twenty-six. I have heard it stated that the temporary slackness in the flour trade in this country is connected with over-stocking following a large recent increase in the total capacity of British flour mills.

    Hours of Railway Employes.
    MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will insist upon all railway companies giving in Returns of working hours of servants asked for as continuous,

    867
    where any interval of rest is less than eight hours between the actual time of starting and finishing duty.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: If the Returns referred to are the periodical Returns obtained under the Regulation of Railways Act, 1889, I may say that instructions are given that the length of a period of duty is to be reckoned from start to finish, no deduction being made for intervals of rest. These instructions are printed with the Return issued for March, 1905. In Returns obtained in dealing with complaints under the Railway Regulation Act, 1893, the companies are similarly required to show the total hours.

    Metropolitan District Railway.
    MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade in how many cases on the Metropolitan District Railway have the axles of vehicles in use on trains for the conveyance of passengers broken since the commencement of electric traction power; have any inquiries been held into the cause of failure of such axles; and can he say what is the cause of the breakages.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am in communication with the Railway Company on the subject, and should be glad if the hon. Member would put down his Question again in the course of a day or two.

    Alien Pilots.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state whether he is now able to include a clause dealing with Alien pilots in the Merchant Shipping Bill.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: In reply to this Question, and that addressed by the hon. Member to my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.† I fear I am not yet in a position to give a definite reply on this matter.

    Irish Industries.
    MR. LIDDELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of
    † SIR GILBERT PARKER: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the question of proposed legislation to exclude alien pilots from our waters has been found compatible with our treaties with foreign countries.
    868
    Trade whether, having regard to the amount of employment given to the Irish peasants in the hand-embroidering, hemstitching, and drawn-thread work trade, he will give instructions for Returns to be kept in future showing the quantity and value of this class of work imported into the United Kingdom from foreign countries.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The form of the Trade Accounts for the present year has been fixed some time ago and cannot conveniently be altered, but the suggestion shall be referred to the Committee for the revision of Trade Accounts which will meet in the autumn to consider the changes that are desirable for the following year.

    Education Rate Demand Notes.
    SIR ROBERT HOBART: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will give instructions that the separate amount of the education rate shall in future be plainly and fully stated on every poor rate demand note, and not concealed, as at the present time, under the term relief of the poor and other expenses of the guardians; and that all overseers of the poor shall be directed to give full information to magistrates, ratepayers, and all concerned as to the amount of the rate levied from time to time for educational purposes.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): In the great majority of cases the amount of rate levied for education purposes is included in the demand note for the poor rate in the item "county contributions" or "borough rate." Generally speaking, county and borough councils are not required by law to inform the overseers how any such item is made up, and consequently the overseers do not necessarily know how much of it is to be raised for the purposes of education. Hence it does not seem to be practicable to call upon them to give in the demand note or otherwise the particulars which my hon. friend desires.

    Municipal Accounts
    MR. BARKER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is prepared to order a Departmental

    869
    Inquiry into the system of keeping and auditing municipal accounts, including the Poor Law.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: The system of keeping the accounts of the various Local Authorities in England and Wales is now being investigated by a Departmental Committee, and the audit of the accounts of Poor Law Authorities is a matter coming within the purview of the Royal Commission who are inquiring into the working of the Poor Law. I am considering the question of the audit of the accounts of town councils, but I am not at present prepared to appoint a Departmental Committee on the subject.

    Bailey's Lane, Stamford Hill
    MR. STUART WORTLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in consequence of his representations, the Urban District Council of Tottenham (Middlesex) have taken any steps to render fit for use the thoroughfare known as Bailey's Lane, adjoining the church and parsonage of St. Bartholomew's, Stamford Hill, or to remove the accumulations of foul water and decaying fish and vegetable matter, whereby danger is being occasioned to the health of those attending the church and inhabiting the parsonage and other dwelling-houses in the neighbourhood; and, if not, whether he can do anything further to compel the District Council of Tottenham to abate this nuisance.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: The Urban District Council do not appear to have taken any direct steps to make up Bailey's Lane. I understand that they consider that in the first instance the boundary along the lane should be adjusted between Hackney and Tottenham with a view to a part of the cost of making up the road being borne by the Hackney Borough Council, but that the latter body are unwilling to agree to this without an adjustment of the boundary along the whole line between Tottenham and Hackney. Negotiations are stated to be in progress as to this. I will not lose sight of the matter. As regards the removal of accumulations of the kind referred to in the Question, I am informed that the Tottenham Medical Officer of Health visited Bailey's Lane on Saturday, and that he states that there is no trace whatever of any fish or vegetable
    870
    refuse from one end of the lane to the other. He adds that it was similarly free when he visited it on the 20th instant.

    Unemployed Act.
    LORD R. CECIL: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Hoxton Division of Shoreditch, I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when the Bill to amend the Unemployed Act of 1905 will be introduced.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I am unable at present to fix a date for this purpose.
    LORD R. CECIL: Will it be this session?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I hope so.

    Adulteration of Butter.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he proposes taking some steps to prevent the practice of blending or faking butter, now so prevalent in England; whether he will consider the advisability of having the standard of percentage of water for all butters lowered; and whether, seeing the extent to which the fraud of blending margarine with pure butter is being practised, he will adopt some method by which such blending may be detected.
    MR. J. A. PEASE(for Sir EDWARD STRACHEY): The suggestions made by the hon. Member will doubtless be considered by the Select, Committee on the butter trade which is now sitting. No legislation on the subject could well be proposed until the Report of the Committee is received.

    Sheep-Worrying in Northamptonshire.
    MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.): I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the attention of the Board has been drawn to frequent cases of sheep-worrying by vagrant dogs during the present lambing season in Northamptonshire, causing serious losses to farmers, and to the insufficiency for existing means of checking this evil; and whether steps will be taken to secure the passing of the Dogs Bill as promptly as possible.
    MR. J. A. PEASE (for Sir EDWARD STRACHEY): The Board of Agriculture have made inquiry into the serious cases of sheep-worrying in Northamptonshire to which my hon. friend refers. It appears that between February 2nd and 20th thirty-one sheep were killed outright and forty-two others were so badly bitten that they have since died or had to be killed. There is no doubt that further powers are needed to deal with the evil, and it is hoped that the Bill which has been already introduced on the subject will be considered at an early date.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: Has the hon. Gentleman any proof whatever that these sheep were worried by vagrant dogs and not by pet dogs?
    MR. J. A. PEASE: I must ask for notice.

    Committee on the Butter Trade.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Committee appointed to inquire and report about the butter trade are likely to furnish their Report within the year; and, if so, whether it is proposed to introduce legislation this year; if not, what steps, if any, will be taken by the Government in the meantime to inspect factories where butter is manipulated.
    Mr. J. A. PEASE (for Sir EDWARD STRACHEY): My hon. friend hopes that the Committee may report before the end of the session, but is afraid it may prove impracticable to introduce legislation on the subject this year. The Board of Agriculture have no power at present to inspect butter factories.
    Mr. JOYCE: But if the owners are willing, will they be inspected?
    Mr. J. A. PEASEI will bring the suggestion before my hon. friend, so that the point may be considered.

    Regent's Park Roads.
    MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will explain why, seeing that £1,200 per mile per year is expended upon the roads of Hyde Park, only £300 per mile per year is expended upon the roads of
    872
    Regent's Park; what is the reason for this difference; will he say how many men are employed daily in cleaning the roads of Regent's Park; what is the average age of these men and what is their rate of pay; and why the gates of Regent's Park, which have never been closed for twenty years, cannot be closed; and will he state under what authority, or under what Act of Parliament, does the Office of Works deal with the Regent's Park roads.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,): The expenditure on the Hyde Park roads is £1,100 per mile per year and not £1,200, and whilst that on the Regent's Park roads was formerly £300 it will be more in future, and in the current year is £520 per mile. The difference between the cost is due to the greater width of, and greater traffic upon, the roads in Hyde Park; and the maintenance of the Regent's Park roads, moreover, is divided between the Office of Works and the Crown Estate Paving Commissioners. The number of men employed daily on the Regent's Park Roads is on an average twelve. Their average age is thirty-eight, and their pay 4s. a day. It has never been found necessary to close the gates of Regent's Park, and I hope such necessity will not arise. The present arrangements for the maintenance of the roads in that Park have existed since the constitution of the Commissioners of Works, but it is a matter of custom rather than of enactment. Efforts are being made to remove the inconvenience of the present dual control.

    Road Refuges at Westminster.
    MR. ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he has taken any, and what, steps to communicate with the Westminster City Council with a view to provide a refuge at the crossing of Bridge Street from the Embankment to the Houses of Parliament.
    MR. HARCOURT: The Office of Works have no jurisdiction in this matter, but I have conveyed the hon. Member's views—in which I concur—to the Westminster City Council, who will, I am sure, favourably consider the suggestion.

    St. James's Park.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can see his way to opening more of the enclosed grass spaces in St. James's Park for the use of children.
    MR. HARCOURT: I have arranged that more accommodation shall be afforded to children in St. James's Park in future. From Easter onwards a triangular piece of grass at the north-east corner towards the Duke of York's steps and a larger and well shaded piece at the south-west corner, opposite the Wellington Barracks, will be thrown open to children only.

    Land Transfer Returns.
    MR. ROWLANDS: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General if he will grant a Return, in continuation of the Returns that were issued annually from 1899 to 1902, giving the numbers of titles that in the years 1903, 1904, and 1905 were registered under the Land Transfer Act, 1897, as absolute, qualified, possessory, and good leasehold, respectively, with the amount of the fees paid in respect thereof.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON,)suggested that if the hon. Member would put down a Motion for the Return he would consider it.

    Portree—Staffin Road.
    MR. JOHN DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if the Congested Districts Board is now prepared to give a grant to the Skye District Committee to aid in the formation of a road to connect Portree with the populous district of Staffin; and if he is aware that the delay in the formation of this road has hindered the development of the diatomite industry in this district.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The Congested Districts Board have not seen their way to incur the expenditure involved in a grant for the construction of this road. They have been assured that the diatomite would never be carried by road to Portree, ten miles for shipment, when it can be shipped on the spot.

    Tenure of Fishermen's Houses in the North.
    MR. SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that Sheriff Guthrie Smith, in a Supplement to the Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland for the year 1884–5, referred to the precarious tenure of many of the houses of fishermen in the North; whether there has been any subsequent Report; and, if not, whether he is prepared to direct further inquiry to be made on the subject.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I have studied the Report mentioned. No subsequent Report has been made, and I will now make further inquiry into the subject.

    Scottish Teachers' Superannuation Allowances.
    MR. J. A. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will introduce in this session a Bill to restore to school boards in Scotland the power of supplementing the supperannuation allowance to teachers, as provided by Section 6 of Clause 31, and Section 8 of Clause 27, respectively, of the Education (Scotland) Bills, introduced by the late Government in 1904 and 1905.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The Government regret the delay which has taken place, for which they are not responsible, and the facts mentioned are familiar to them. But they cannot undertake to introduce legislation upon this subject this session.

    Stornoway Fishermen's Dwellings.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state whether the twenty-nine houses built by the Congested Districts Board at the Battery Park, Stornoway, as dwellings for fishermen, have yet been made watertight; and will he say whether these houses were passed as fit for occupation by Colonel Gore Booth, the engineer to the Congested Districts Board.
    MR. SINCLAIR: Steps have been already taken to have the defect referred to remedied. The houses have not yet been taken over from the contractor.
    MR. WEIR: How is it houses in that state have been allowed to be occupied?
    MR. SINCLAIRasked for notice of the Question.

    Crofters Acts Amendment Bill.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if the promised Bill to amend the Crofters Acts will be brought in before Easter.
    MR. SINCLAIR: No pledge can be given as to date, but every effort is being made to hasten the introduction of the Bill.

    Habost Typhoid Fever Outbreak.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that an outbreak of typhoid fever at Habost, in the Ness district of the parish of Barvas, Island of Lewis, which, up to February 13th, had resulted in seventy-five cases, is attributed by the local Medical Officer of Health for Barvas parish to the drinking water being contaminated; and will he state what steps have been taken to secure a supply of pure water.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I am aware of the unfortunate outbreak of fever referred to, and that it has been attributed to the water supply. The Local Government Board have called on the Local Authority for information as to what steps have been taken to improve it, and I am glad to be able to say that a new well has been sunk at Habost, Ness, at a spot selected by the medical officer and sanitary inspector, and that on the 23rd instant the medical officer reported favourably upon the water, and that a specification is being prepared to have the well protected and water brought to the road-side, and that the work will be proceeded with at once.

    Orkney Bishopric Lands.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Office of Woods, if he will state the average amount of feu duties or casualty duties derived from the bishopric lands in Orkney; and whether, in view of the difficulty that such feu and casualty duties place in the way of any scheme of law reform, he will consider on what terms he would be prepared to release the land from this burden.
    MR. MCKENNA: The receipts by the Crown from feu, etc., duties of lands
    876
    within the former Bishopric of Orkney amount, on the average of the past five years, to £617 per annum, and the casualties of superiority in respect of lands in the islands, including the bishopric, to £46. The feu, etc., duties can be redeemed at rates varying from twenty-five to thirty-three years purchase, according to circumstances; and the casualties on the terms fixed by the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act, 1874, i.e., on payment of one-and-a-half times the amount of the highest casualty.

    Foreshore Fishing Rights in Orkney.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Woods and Forests, if he is aware that several years back the Woods and Forests leased or sold to Mr. Middlemore the rights to certain foreshore fishing in Orkney, and that in the same lease or covenant to sell, on behalf of the public, it was stipulated that the public right to the fishing which they had from time immemorial enjoyed should be preserved under regulations to be made by the Secretary for Scotland, and that since then, owing to protracted litigation, no such regulations have been issued; and whether he will now take steps to cancel, in the interests of the public, this lease.
    MR. MCKENNA: The lease, which contains an option of purchase and has-been extended to Martinmas next, cannot be cancelled, but arrangements have for more than a year past been in operation, under which the public can obtain fishing tickets for 1s. a day during the currency of the lease. Should the sale be carried out any regulations which may be made as regards the fishing will be submitted for the approval of the Secretary for Scotland.

    Irish Estates in Chancery.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether, in view of the fact that when an estate has come under the control of the Court of Chancery and tenants in actual occupation of holdings on it in immediate and unbroken succession to several generations of similar tenants of the same holding take, not of their own motion but by order of the court, court leases of the holdings, they are thereby

    877
    deprived of the right of getting judicial rents fixed, he will say what statutory authority is there for holding that the circumstances of the estate or of its owners should thus destroy the rights which the tenants would otherwise possess; and, in view of the number of tenants in various parts of Ireland who are excluded from the Land Courts on these grounds, does His Majesty's Government propose to find any remedy.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension as to the law upon this subject. The position of tenants in actual occupation of holdings is not rendered in any way less favourable by reason of the landlord's estate being brought under the control of the court, and no tenant's existing contract of tenancy can be determined by the Court cinder circumstances other than those Tinder which it could be determined by the landlord. The Court never orders existing tenants to take out "Court leases," and no present tenant is ever deprived by the Court of his right to get a fair rent fixed.

    County Court Accounts.
    MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and the recorders have now made an order, requiring every county court account in equity proceedings and others to be kept in the joint names of the county court judge or recorder and of the clerk of the peace for the time being; and why this procedure, which has always been followed in the West Riding of the county of Cork, was not followed by the recorder in the East Riding; whether he can yet say when and by whom the investigation into the defalcations of B. Curry, late assistant of the clerk of the peace, will be held; and whether the Southern Law Association, whose allegations have been impugned, will have an opportunity of being represented.
    MR. CHERRY: I am informed by the clerk of the peace that the order referred to in the Question was received in Cork on the 20th instant. He also tells me that there has not hitherto been in the West Riding of the county of Cork any
    878
    printed or written rule in existence regulating the lodgment of money in court other than the rules of 1890 under the County Officers and Courts Act of 1877, but that the practitioners in that jurisdiction followed the practice of lodging all monies paid into court to the joint credit of the county court judge and the clerk of the peace. In the great majority of cases the East Riding practitioners, he also informs me, have followed the same procedure, and it is only in a few cases in which the practice has been unfortunately departed from that the misappropriation of monies by Curry has taken place. I can assure the hon. Member that I shall endeavour by every possible means to recover the money which has been lost, for the benefit of the suitors in the court, but I can make no statement as to any special inquiry into the matter until the proceedings which are about to be commenced against the sureties of Curry and of the late clerk of the peace are brought to a hearing.
    MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I do not, of course, blame the hon. and learned Gentleman for statements which are supplied to him by others, but I want to know who, in his opinion, should really be held responsible for these embezzlements. I should like to ask him, further, whether it is quite fair for an official to suggest that solicitors are to blame for not observing a rule which is now for the first time promulgated?
    MR. CHERRY: I should not like to state, in my place here, who I think is responsible for the matter. It may be a question of criminal liability, and it would be very unfair for me to make any such statement as suggested. With regard to the second Question, the official only answered the interrogatory put to him by me with reference to the facts. He does not blame solicitors for not observing the rule; he merely states the fact that under the existing rule most of the solicitors in the East Riding had lodged the money to joint credit, but that, unfortunately, some had departed from that practice.
    MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether in the proposed Inquiry a hearing will be given to the Southern Law Association, which represents the solicitors, and which

    879
    has unanimously given an opinion different to that of the official in question?
    MR. CHERRY: I should not like to answer a hypothetical Question. When the Question comes up of appointing a Commission of Inquiry, if one is appointed at all, then will be the time to raise the point. But it may be there will be no necessity for an Inquiry.
    MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Surely it will be necessary to inquire whether or not it was the fault of the Recorder of Cork that his officer was guilty of this offence.
    MR. CHERRY: I cannot answer that Question.
    MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I shall take an early opportunity of calling attention to this matter.

    Valuation of Land Improvements.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, in case of appeal against a judicial rent, is it still the practice, as stated by Mr. Fitzgerald in his evidence before a Select Committee in 1894, for the court valuer to adopt the estimated value of improvements made by the Sub-Commission, instead of making an independent examination and estimate; and, if not, can he refer to any rule forbidding the continuance of that practice, or say when it was discontinued.
    MR. CHERRY: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. I am informed by the Land Commissioners that the effect of Mr. Justice Fitzgerald's evidence in 1894 is not quite correctly set out in the Question, but that the practice then existing has been changed by the passing of the Land Act, 1903. Since the passing of that Act, in fair rent appeals the holdings are inspected and reported upon by an assessor who has heard the evidence, having been present in court during the hearing of the case, and he has to report (1) the improvements on the holding made wholly or partly by the landlord, or at his cost; (2) the improvements on the holding made wholly or partly by the tenant, or at his cost. It is his duty to make an
    880
    independent examination and estimate of the value of the improvements in every case, and not to adopt the views of the Assistant Commissioners upon these matters.

    Irish Land Law Administration.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that while the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, in harmony with the English Valuation Acts, requires the court to ascertain and record, first the gross fair rent of holding as a whole, and afterwards the tenant's improvements and other matters to be deducted, in order to find the net fair rent, the court in practice pursues the directly contrary course, to the detriment of the tenant; and will he say whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
    MR. CHERRY: So far as I am aware, the Land Commission Court strictly complies with the directions of the Land Act, 1896, in first ascertaining the gross fair rent of a holding and afterwards the value of the tenant's improvements and other matters necessary to arrive at the net fair rent. Should any Sub-Commission neglect or refuse to carry out these statutory requirements, an appeal lies to a Judicial Commissioner, and from him to the Court of Appeal in Ireland.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that a tenant applying to have a judicial rent fixed is required to claim improvements by endorsement on his notice, and to prove them in court; and whether, seeing that the statute empowers the court to make this requirement, and that all improvements not so claimed and proved are presumed to be the landlord's property, contrary to fact and to law, he proposes to take any steps to prevent the tenant being thus deprived of the statutory presumption in his favour, and of the property which the statute aimed at securing to him.
    MR. CHERRY: I must refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave to a Question almost identical in terms addressed by him to me on the 7th of this month.†
    † See (4) Debates, cliii., 453.

    Irish Land—Tenants' Improvements.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the pink schedules, Form 39, on the files in rent fixing cases commonly show that the landlord has not made any improvement, that improvements have been made, and that the rent has been fixed on the gross value, including the improvements, on the ground that although the court valuer has ascertained and reported the improvements the tenant has not claimed them by schedule in court; and whether His Majesty's Government will enforce the law requiring all improvements to be deemed the tenant's until the contrary has been shown, and exempting the tenant's improvement from rent.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): I am informed by the Land Commission that the pink schedules referred to do not commonly show the result which is stated in the first part of the Question. The Commissioners fix fair rents in accordance with the provisions of the Land Law Acts and the procedure is regulated by statutory rules. As to the concluding part of the Question, I am afraid that I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on Wednesday last.†

    Untenanted Lands.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland will he arrange that in all Reports and Returns of transactions under the Land Act of 1903, when the land dealt with is untenanted, the Poor Law valuation shall be shown in lieu of yearly rent.
    MR. BRYCE: The Land Commission inform me that untenanted land is, as a rule, purchased by the Estates Commissioners for division into parcels and distribution amongst the classes of persons referred to in Section 2 (1) of the Act of 1903. The tenement valuation is not always ascertainable even for the untenanted land so purchased as a whole, and when such land is divided into parcels it becomes necessary to have a revision of the tenement valuation to suit each parcel sold. This revision is not com-
    † See (4) Debates, cliv., 379.
    882
    pleted until after the untenanted land has been divided. It would not, therefore, be possible to show in the Returns the valuation in respect of the re-sales of such land in parcels.

    General Post Office Regulations—Private Box Fees at Wexford.
    MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General, in view of a statement in the General Post Office Regulations Book that the charge for a private box varies from £2 2s. to £3 a year at the larger post offices, but that at the smaller offices the amount is £1 1s. a year, he will say whether the charge of £2 2s. is made all over the three Kingdoms in towns of the same population as Wexford, about 11,000; and, if not, can he explain why the payment for a private box was increased from £1 1s. to £2 2s. on Messrs. Pierce and Company, Wexford, Cycle Works.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): Yes, Sir. The fee for a private box is now £2 2s. a year at all head offices of the size of Wexford.

    Cork County Mail Service.
    MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that necessity exists for a mail between Durrus and Kilcrohane, county Cork; and whether he will have one established.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The question of establishing such a service has not been previously considered, but I have called for a Report on the subject, and I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I can arrive at a decision in the matter.

    Donaghadee Telephone Service.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has come to any decision as to the provision of a telephone service for Donaghadee, county Down.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Member the information he desires, for considerable labour would be required to compile such a Return.

    Corry (Westmeath) Postal Arrangements.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General will he inquire into the present postal arrangements in the Corry and Rathaspic district, Westmeath, with a view to having them improved by the opening of a post office at Corry.
    MR. SIDNEY BUXTON: I find that the amount of correspondence for the district in which Corry is situated is very small indeed, and that the cost of the existing service is comparatively high. I am sorry that under these circumstances I am unable to comply with the hon. Member's wishes.

    Irish Devolution.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the correspondence which passed between the late Prime Minister and the late Viceroy of Ireland with reference to the policy of devolution is in the possession of the Government and will be published; and, if not, whether he can take any steps in the interest of the public to obtain its publication.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): I have made inquiries and I cannot ascertain that the correspondence in question is in the possession of the Government. The hon. Member is, no doubt, aware that letters passing between Ministers are not usually of a character which calls for their preservation in the Government Departments. I confess I do not see what steps I can take in the circumstances to obtain its publication, if the late Prime Minister or Lord Dudley objects to that course being adopted.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Dudley, the late Viceroy, declared in a public letter the other day that he would be glad to publish the correspondence if he could get the permission of the late Prime Minister. In view of the importance of the whole truth about this matter being published, can the right hon. Gentleman suggest any means by which we can get that assent?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is not for me either to address myself directly to the late Prime Minister or to suggest to the hon. Member the best way of doing so. But I have no doubt the hon. Member's ingenuity will suggest some means to him.

    Crofters Act Amendment Bill.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if arrangements will be made for the introduction of the Crofters Act Amendment Bill before Easter.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: My right hon. friend the Secretary for Scotland has already answered a Question to the same effect.
    MR. MORTONsaid the Question had not been definitely answered by the Secretary for Scotland and he would repeat this Question in a day or two.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASasked what Supply would be taken on Thursday and as to other business.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The first business on Wednesday will be the County Justices Qualification Bill, which will be introduced under the Ten Minutes' Rule, and the following order will be the Trade Disputes Bill, which was originally spoken of as coming on earlier in the week, but is now fixed for Wednesday. The Estimates put down for Thursday will be the remaining Army Estimates and the Woods and Forests Vote of the Civil Service Estimates, Class 2.
SIR FRANCIS POWELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman fix a day for the introduction of the Education Bill?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Not yet, but I hope before Easter.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: When will the House have an opportunity of discussing the Procedure Committee's Report?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The procedure rules will be put down for discussion before Easter, but not this week.

WALLIS' DIVORCE BILL [LORDS].
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to communicate to this House copies of the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings, together with Documents deposited, in the case of Wallis' Divorce Bill [Lords]; and that the Clerk do carry the said Message.
Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on Divorce Bills, that they do hear Counsel and examine Witnesses for Wallis' Divorce Bill [Lords]; and also that they do hear Counsel and examine Witnesses against the Bill, if the parties concerned think fit to be heard by Counsel and produce Witnesses.—(Mr. Attorney-General.)

STANDING COMMITTEES.
Ordered, That all Standing Committees have leave to print and circulate with the Votes the Minutes of their Proceedings and any amended Clause of Bills committed to them.—(Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)
STANDING COMMITTEES.
  NEW BILLS.
    RESERVE FORCES BILL.
    "To amend the Law relating to the Reserve Forces," presented by Mr. Secretary Haldane; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 119.]
    SEAMEN'S AND SOLDIERS' FALSE CHARACTERS BILL.
    "To amend the Law relating to the falsification of Seamen's and Soldiers' certificates of service or discharge, and to false statements made, used, or given in connection with entry or enlistment into His Majesty's naval, military, or marine forces," presented by Mr. Secretary Haldane; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 120.]
    LONDON MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (HOURS OF POLL) BILL.
    "To extend the Hours of Polling at the election of members of the London County Council and of the Metropolitan Borough Councils," presented by Mr. Dickinson; supported by Mr. AclandAllen, Mr. Branch, Mr. Waterlow, and Mr. Wiles; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 121.]
    PETROLEUM BILL.
    "To amend The Petroleum Act, 1879," presented by Mr. J. W. Benn; supported by Mr. Alden, Mr. Whitwell Wilson, Mr. Pickersgill, Mr. Bowerman, and Mr. Steadman; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 122.]
    HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS).
    Ordered, That Mr. Fenwick be a Member of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Kitchen and Refreshment Booms).—(Mr. Whiteley.)

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
    THE SECRETARY FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I hope I shall not have to inflict on the House a very long statement; the subject is familiar to most Members; and a considerable part of the Bill deals with details in the recommendations of the Departmental Committee which are rather subjects for discussion in Committee than on any other stage. The question with which the Bill deals has advanced by stages, and will advance. Up to 1880 there was the common law for the benefit of the workman, and in that year it was reinforced by the Employers' Liability Act, which continued in operation, with all the disadvantages attending the legal distinctions of negligence and common employment until 1897, when a totally new departure was made with the Workmen's Compensation Act, founded on the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham that, when a person on his own responsibility sets in motion an agency that creates risks for others, he ought to be similarly responsible for what he does. The acceptance

    887
    of the liability of employers was made subject in 1897 to two considerations; first, the right of compensation was limited to the most dangerous employments, and, secondly, the liability was limited to those employers who could either afford to pay directly or through insurance against the risk. Then in 1900 the Workmen's Compensation Act of that year was extended to agricultural labourers and gardeners. In that Act two of the main principles of the Act of 1897 were abandoned, because it was made to include two employments which are among the safest in the country; and, in the second place, it included employment which exposed small farmers to very considerable risks on the ground that they would not be able to pay heavy compensation in case of serious injury to a workman and might not insure, because the premium on insurance was out of all proportion to the risk. The Government now think that the time has arrived for a wide extension of the Act of 1897 to every class of labour, and in the Bill a new principle is adopted which differentiates it from the Act of 1897. That Act excluded all classes of workmen who were not directly and expressly included; and it is now proposed to reverse this, and, subject to the definition of a workman in the Bill, all will be included who are not expressly excluded. The definition is important, as it is really a governing factor in the Bill. A workman includes any person not a police-constable, clerk, shop assistant, outworker, domestic servant, or a member of the employer's family dwelling in his house who works under contract for wages or serves under apprenticeship by way of manual labour or otherwise, and whether the contract is expressed or implied, oral or in writing. Under that definition certain classes of the community are excluded; but the House will observe that workmen employed in workshops, in transport service, fishermen, postmen, and seamen will be brought within the operation of the Act. With regard to seamen, the Committee which considered the subject two years ago recommended that their case should be dealt with under Section 207 of the Merchant Shipping Act, and hon. Members will know that under that Act provision was made for seamen injured during the voyage, but after landing they had to take their chance. The
    888
    Government consider that the best and simplest plan would be to bring them under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and we propose, therefore, to deal with them in opposition to the proposal of the Committee. When a seaman lands after a voyage during which he has been partially or totally incapacitated he will be able to claim under the Workman's Compensation Act. The difficulty of small employers which considerably hampered Parliament in 1897 is still with us. There are a number of small workshops throughout the country and a number of small employments in which an employer is practically a workman himself; and, as hon. Members know, it is the small employer who, as a rule, neglects to insure and in case of serious injury is unable to pay very heavy compensation. According to the evidence given before the Committee, 25 per cent. of the employers in the building trade do not insure at all, and probably the greater proportion of that 25 per cent. consist of small employers. It does not always happen that small employers do not insure, for the report of the Committee mentioned stevedores as an important exception and who, though they paid a high premium, did as a rule insure. But, putting aside exceptions, small employers prefer to take the risk of accidents rather than to pay the minimum premium out of all propor ion to the risks in their particular trades. The Committee spent a good deal of time on this question and pointed out that the successful working of the Act of 1897 was largely due to the organisation of the system of mutual insurance agencies and the action of the larger trade unions. When there was organised co-operation the Act of 1897 had worked extremely well. But the Committee went on to point out that in industries where employers and workmen were not organised it was doubtful if the same results could be achieved and it was difficult to say how far small employers would insure. It is dangerous to concede by law a right which in many cases will prove to be illusory; and for that reason we propose that employers whose workmen do not exceed five in number shall not come under the operations of the Act. That limitation does not apply to agriculture — the clause relating to agriculture provides that the test shall be one permanent workman—

    889
    and there are some other exceptions. Under this limitation there will no doubt be hardships and anomalies, but this Bill is not and cannot be final. There is no reason why different classes of workpeople, such as shop assistants and clerks, should be excluded from the Bill, but in certain cases small employers would have to pay a premium out of all proportion to the risk in their particular trade, and for that reason a large number would not insure at all. Then, if there were an accident, the employee would not have a substantial man to proceed against and the employer probably would be ruined. The ultimate solution of the whole question is probably to be found in a scheme of compulsory insurance. When we have seen how this Bill works, fresh proposals might be made to make up proved deficiencies, to extend it to other classes, and to get rid of limitations; and some plan of cheap and easy insurance on a small scale through the medium of the Post Office might be possible. But we have not reached that point yet. There is one important limitation to the exclusion of workmen under the limit of five. It is provided that if the accident to a workman coming under the definition is attributable to the use by the employer of machinery driven by steam, water, or other mechanical power, or if the workman at the time of the accident was employed in the care or management of horses, mining, quarrying, or building operations, or in laying or repairing any electric line or works, the limit of five shall not apply in the case of such workmen. The House will see that that is an important limitation of the exclusion, and I think it will agree that it is a valuable and practical application of the principle of workmen's compensation to cases which most require it and which otherwise would be cut out by the limitation. I have now dealt with the basis and scope of the Bill. One incidental advantage of the new form will be that our old friend the "undertaker" will go out of workmen's compensation, and we get rid of the definition of included trades which has been so fruitful of litigation under the Act. Most of the proposals in this Bill are based wholly or in part on the valuable recommendations of the Departmental Committee over which Sir Kenelm Digby presided. In the first place, we propose
    890
    to extend workmen's compensation to industrial diseases. That involves a new departure. Of all the casualties to which the industrial army is unfortunately liable, those arising from disease are the most pitiable and disastrous. The Committee did not recommend that industrial diseases should be included in the Bill, but the Government thought the case was so strong that, although the difficulties were great, they thought a strong effort ought to be made to surmount them. Therefore, we propose to include in the Bill the following diseases:— Anthrax, lead poisoning, mercury poisoning, phosphorus poisoning, arsenic poisoning, and ankylostomiasis. The clause which deals with this question contains the following general provision. Where a workman is certified to be suffering from disease, and thereby partially or totally disabled from earning full wages, and his disease is due to the nature of the employment on which he has been engaged during the previous twelve months, he is to be entitled to compensation, the compensation to be recovered from the employer who last employed him. But if the employer proves that the disease was, in fact, contracted or developed while the workman was in the service of another employer, or other employers, there is to be proportionate and collective responsibility. In these cases the limit of five is not applicable, and the Secretary of State is given powers by Provisional Order to extend this provision to other diseases. We have given effect to the Committee's recommendations in respect of sub-contracts, and the law will be amended to give the workman security for the recovery of compensation, the principal not to be liable, however, for accidents on premises which are not under his control or management; With regard to the payment of compensation, this is not made under the existing law until a fortnight has elapsed from the time of the accident. The Committee think that any interference with this provision of the law would involve a grave departure from the system of 1897. The Government have given serious consideration to this matter, knowing full well that there is a strong objection to any interference with the law as it stands. We have considered the case of industries which are alleged

    891
    already to be hampered by the cost of the Acts. The Committee found that hitherto the pecuniary burden imposed by the Acts upon the employers has not been excessive. On the other hand, we have to remember that the employers have not yet come to the point when compensation under the Act of 1897 will reach its highest level, after which it will probably go down to a certain extent. But since 1897, taking into account all available experience, the Government have come to the conclusion that trade has not been hampered by the Act sufficiently to prevent what they considered a further measure of justice. There was ample evidence given to the Committee that large masses of men, women, and children whose weekly earnings amounted to something between 5s. and 25s. a week are put to the most serious hardship by the operation of the law as it stands. We have therefore come to the conclusion that the two weeks shall be reduced to one. That is the proposal in the Bill. Of course it will put a certain increased cost upon the employer. The cost has been variously estimated by experts before the Committee at from 25 per cent. up to 50 per cent. I will not at this moment hazard an opinion as to the incidence of that increased cost. A small proportion possibly may fall upon wages; but it will probably be distributed between the proprietor and the customer— at any rate, it will be distributed upon the resources of the trade without, as we think, doing any injury at all to the trade, and it is a measure of justice which we cannot leave out of this Bill. Under the present law compensation is based on the wages received or agreed to be paid while the workman is in the service of the same employer. But the effect of the law as it stands imposes a great hardship on some classes of workmen, especially on those engaged in casual labour The Committee have given instances of hardship which occur under the present law. A man earning from 6s. to 7s. a day may be awarded 3s. 6d. a week. Another case was given in which a man went on for a night's work, and, being injured, received only 2s. a week. Another more extreme case was that of a man, who, in five days earned 30s. and then went on to a fresh job, and was injured in the first hour, and his compensation was reckoned out at 3½d. per week. It is quite obvious
    892
    that there are great anomalies under the law as it stands which must be removed. Therefore, in the Bill the Government have adopted the recommendation of the Committee, which is founded, virtually, upon the Employers' Liability Act standard. If a man has worked with an employer for two weeks continuously or more then his compensation, when he is injured, will be founded on the wages he is receiving in that] employment, but, if he has not worked continuously for two weeks, then the court must have regard to the earnings which such workman would receive in the same trade, in the same employment, and in the same district. In regard to the reassessment for partial incapacity, the proposal of the Bill is that the weekly payment is not to exceed one-half the difference between the amount of the average weekly earnings before the accident, and the amount which the workman is earning, or is fit to earn. That is to say, if a man who is earning £2 a week is injured and is awarded compensation at the rate of a £1 a week, is, on the reassessment, found capable of earning £1 a week, he would get 10s. a week compensation, so that he would be in a position to earn 30s. a week. There is power under the Bill to commute weekly payments which continued for not less than six months for a lump sum not exceeding £500. With regard to the question of aged persons and minors, the Committee find that the Acts have largely increased the difficulties of old men finding and retaining employment, and the difficulty is believed to be growing. They came practically to the same conclusion with regard to infirm and maimed persons, and they proposed that a lower rate of compensation should be payable in regard to both these classes. The two cases of the aged person and of the infirm and maimed person appears to the Government to be governed by somewhat different considerations. I confess that personally I am somewhat inclined to extend to both classes in the proposals of the Committee, but the difficulties are undoubtedly rather more serious in the case of the infirm and maimed person. Other considerations arise, which I will not mention now, and so, on the whole, the Government have decided only to deal with the recommendation of the Committee in its application to the aged person. After

    893
    the age of sixty the employer is enabled to make special arrangements with the aged person under which, in case of death, a maximum payment of £25 is payable, and, in the case of injury and incapacity, weekly compensation with a maximum of 10s. a week. The Committee suggested 5s. The Government think that is too small an amount, and they, therefore, extend it to 10s. In the case of minors, again, very great hardships have arisen under the present law. A boy, for example, receiving 4s. a week, who is injured and incapacitated for life, cannot get more than 2s. a week compensation. The Bill provides that, where a minor is injured who earns less than 20s. a week, 100 per cent. should be substituted for 50 per cent. in respect of compensation based on his weekly earnings, but the weekly payment is not to exceed 10s. a week. If the case is reviewed within twelve months or more after after the accident the amount of the weekly payment may be increased to any amount not exceeding 50 per cent. of the weekly sum which the workman would probably have been earning at the date of the review if he had remained uninjured, but not in any case more than £1 a week. The Bill authorises the payment into court by the employer of a lump sum in case of a fatal accident where dependents are left, to be invested at the discretion of the registrar. The Bill also deals with the case of widows, and provision is made, where there is evidence before the court that a widow who obtained compensation under the Act was prone to misconduct, for the court to apply the whole or part of the compensation, which otherwise would accrue to the widow, for the benefit of the other dependents. I now come to the question of medical referees. As the law now stands, when there is an accident and a workman is injured, he has to submit himself to the employer's doctor, who reports to the employer. If there is disagreement then there is no remedy but proceedings in the courts. If proceedings are taken under the Employers' Liability Act medical evidence is taken, but it is not competent to bring a medical referee into court; but if they are taken under the Workmen's Compensation Act, after hearing the medical evidence, a medical referee may be appointed, and his judgment is final. But that leads to considerable delay and cost, and so under the Bill it is provided that if there is no agreement
    894
    after injury between the employer and the workman, on the report of the employer's doctor, the employer or the workman, on payment of a fee, can apply to the court, and the registrar may at once appoint a medical referee, whose judgment will be final. And in case of review either party in the same way can apply to the court, and the registrar will appoint a referee whose judgment will be final. The Government hope that that provision will save a good deal of unnecessary cost and delay. Provision is also taken in the Bill that the Secretary of State may, with the sanction of the Treasury, appoint medical men to be referees under the Act, and, subject to Treasury regulations, remuneration and expenses may be paid to them out of public money. There are various other minor points of detail, the consideration of which I propose to leave to another stage. The Government are aware that the change in the basis of the Act will bring out new conditions, new points, and they will welcome suggestions. They will have the benefit of the criticism and information of the House, and I have no doubt that the Bill in its passage through the House will be greatly improved and strengthened. There is one important consideration on which I should like to touch, and that is the question of safety under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It was feared in 1897 that the adoption of the new principle would lead to more accidents. It is maintained by the Government, on the other hand, that the contrary result will probably ensue. The Committee find that no evidence has been brought before them which enables them to find that any great improvement in the direction of safety is to be placed to the credit of the Act, and their conclusion on the matter has reference to an important point which was raised in the evidence of Commander Smith with regard to the power of the court, under the Act of 1897, to set any fines imposed under the Factory any Workshop Act against the compensation due to the workman, and that that provision removed the Act from any penal operation. The Committee propose that that particular part of the clause should be repealed, and the Government have adopted that recommendation. The Committee say—
    "On the whole we feel unable to come to the conclusion that the operation of the Compensation Act of 1897 has had any marked or

    895
    ascertainable effect, one way or the other, upon the safety of the workman."
    Therefore, in considering this question anew, we must not flatter ourselves that by providing compensation we provide increased security for the workman. In my judgment that increased security will have to be found in the operation of other Acts, and more particularly, of course, in the operations of the Factory and Workshop Act and the Mines Regulation Act. There is one further point which I think will give general satisfaction. The Bill which I propose to introduce is in the form of a consolidating Act, incorporating the Acts of 1897 and 1900, so that the House will have plainly before them, in more or less simple English, the whole statement of the case with regard to the compensation of workmen under the law. In these circumstances I venture on an appeal to the House. The Government are submitting the whole subject of workmen's compensation and are opening it all up, and as this is done for the convenience of the House I hope that questions which are not only settled, but which are supposed to be satisfactorily settled, will not be unnecessarily re-opened so as to hamper the progress of the Act. Our main object is to pass the Bill into law this session, and we offer it to the House in the hope that it will be of permanent practical benefit to all that are included within the scope of its provisions.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the law with respect to Compensation to Workmen for injuries suffered in the course of their employment."—(Mr. Gladstone).
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I am sure I am voicing the opinion of the whole House when I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the clearness and ability with which he has dealt with a very complicated subject. We have all listened to him with very great pleasure, we have all felt the difficulty of his task, and recognised the excellent manner in which he has discharged it. I do not think there is any difference of opinion as to the object to be aimed at. We all welcome a Bill to amend the Act of 1897. We feel that an Amendment of that Act is very much wanted. The Act, as the right hon. Gentleman
    896
    has explained, was a new procedure in legislation in 1897, and for that reason it had to be to a certain extent experimental and tentative, and, therefore, we need not be surprised at the fact that after working eight or nine years it requires some considerable amendment. But the experience of those eight or nine years, I think, on the whole, has been very satisfactory, but certainly the time has now come when we might deal with many matters which require amendment, and as the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do, very largely extend the Act in its operations towards the people who come under it. I have listened very carefully to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and I gather from him that not only is the Bill to be an amending, but a consolidating, Bill. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on this fact, and I admire his courage in advoiding the temptation to legislate by reference. I know from the experience I had in introducing a measure on this subject last year the very great difficulty of dealing with it purely by an amending Bill, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman has taken a wise, and, I am bound to say, a courageous course in bringing in the Bill in the form he has done. I may assure him that so far as I am concerned, and so far as my friends on this side of the House are concerned, we will accept the suggestion that he has made to us in regard to not opening up unnecessary subjects. Generally speaking, subject to three or four points for amendment on which we feel strongly, we shall give all the assistance we can to secure that this measure shall become law this session The Bill, I admit, is a more ambitious one than that which I had the honour to introduce to the House last year. We had a debate on the Second Reading of that Bill, but the measure did not get beyond that stage. As the right hon. Gentleman has explained, the present Bill proceeds by different machinery from that of the original Act, and from that proposed in the Bill of last year, which followed that of the parent Act. I understand that, whereas in the original Act and in the Bill of last year all trades were excluded except those which were specially included under the right hon. Gentleman's Bill all trades are included except those which are excluded by name. That, I think, is an

    897
    improvement, but it is rather opposed to the advice given by the Departmental Committee presided over by Sir Kenelm Digby. I wish to associate myself with the praise given by the right hon. Gentleman to that Committee, because I was at the Home Office at the time and I know the extreme care and great attention which they gave to this subject. The present Bill, I understand, extends the operations of the parent Act to injury to health in dangerous trades—that is to say, it gives compensation in cases of lead poisoning, anthrax, and mercury poisoning, and in similar cases mentioned in the schedule of the Bill. The question of including these trades was pressed upon us very strongly last year by my hon. friend the Member for Berwickshire. He moved an Amendment to the Second Reading of the Bill suggesting that no Bill would be satisfactory which did not give compensation in these cases, and, therefore, I congratulate him on having so far pressed his case upon the attention of the public and of his own Party as to secure the inclusion of these trades within the scope of the measure. My only objection then was, and my only criticism now is, that I think it will be found an extremely difficult provision to work. The Act has hitherto been devoted to? compensation for accidents. It has been laid down that an accident must be something of which the date can be fixed, and I think it would be rather difficult, notwithstanding all the right hon. Gentleman has said, to fix the date when infection was incurred in such a case as lead poisoning, or mercury poisoning. It might be rather difficult to find on which employer the cost of compensation should be cast. I only make that remark as a friendly criticism, for I think there is great difficulty in the matter, and I wish the House to bear in mind that we must not in this case, while wishing to be generous in our extension of the Act, do injury to the employers. If it could be proved that a workman had contracted the disease in a certain employment, I think the case for compensation under the Act would be very strong indeed, but in many instances men pass from one employer to another, and as some of these diseases are very insidious and slow in becoming known, it may be very difficult indeed to find the right man upon whom to place the
    898
    onus of paying compensation. I do not put myself at all in hostility to this extension of the Act. As I have pointed out, we based our Bill last year very closely on the Report of the Commission. The Commission did not recommend this, and although we were sympathetic towards the proposal we felt the difficulties were great, and we did not include it. But if the right hon. Gentleman who has so pluckily attempted to deal with this subject is successful, and if it can be done without inflicting hardship on employers, I am sure we wish him well. Then, I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill extends compensation to seamen and fishermen. The Departmental Committee, after carefully considering this question, recommended that compensation to seamen was a matter which ought to be dealt with by an amendment of the Merchant Shipping Act. I mentioned that subject in introducing my measure last year, and hinted that it was the intention of the Government to find this compensation for seamen by the method suggested, namely, an Amendment of the Merchant Shipping Act. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has thoroughly satisfied himself that it can be worked under this measure. Had I not known that the right hon. Gentleman was going to introduce it in this Bill, I might have suggested that it should have formed a matter to be dealt with under the Merchant Shipping Bill now before the House. I am very glad that fishermen are going to be included in this Bill. I think the Departmental Committee suggested that this matter was so difficult that it should be left to the advice of a special Committee after special inquiry. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has either had that special inquiry or is satisfied that the interests of seamen can be properly looked after under the provisions of this Bill. There is only one other point of criticism I want to make, and that is with regard to the chief departure from the spirit, at all events, of the measure which was introduced last year—that is as to the "fourteen days." The right hon. Gentleman explained to the House that the Departmental Committee did not make this recommendation; in fact they thought that the law in this respect should be left as it is. He is not prepared to follow their advice, nor does he go to the whole extent of abolishing the

    899
    "fourteen days," but he suggests a compromise of "seven days." Under the Act of 1897 an employer was not liable for an accident where a man was disabled for a period of less than two weeks, nor, in the case of an accident for which compensation was payable, in respect of the first fortnight even in a case of prolonged disablement. I always understood that the object of the first fortnight's exclusion was to prevent malingering and the multiplication of small claims. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that seven days will be a sufficient modification to meet the case. That is a point which has been eloquently and ably put forward by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, and I shall be very anxious to hear whether they are satisfied with the compromise, or whether they think the low limit named should not be enacted. It is clear, I think, that a very great amount of expense to the employer will be caused by this alteration. Again, I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has taken care to consult employers of labour, especially on his own side of the House, with regard to this extra burden which he is placing upon them. I am anxious to give every reasonable facility to cover reasonable cases in the interests of the employees, but we must not not in our desire to act generously to them either make the Act unworkable or throw unreasonable cost upon industry. The Committee which sat under the chairmanship of Sir Kenelm Digby took a great deal of evidence on this point. As to the additional risk incurred and the cost of insurance, the General Accident Company thought that the additional premium required would be 35 per cent. and the General Insurance thought it would be 50 per cent. If the assurance companies still hold that these figures are correct, we shall have seriously to consider whether such a scheme would not throw too great a burden on the employer. I am most anxious that the Act should prove successful, and I hope that when the Bill is in Committee this question of burden on the employers will be carefully discussed. I do not want to press it now or on the Second Reading, for I am anxious that the measure should pass into law as quickly as possible; but details can always be more usefully considered in Committee than on the floor of the House. I am sure that hon. Members of the Labour Party below the gangway
    900
    want only a measure which will be fair as between man and man, and that they will endeavour by their criticisms and Amendments to make it a workable measure and one likely to be accepted by all classes of employers and employed. Whether the right hon. the Home Secretary has gone too far or not in amending the Act of 1897, or in extending the benefits of the Act to further trades — the general principle being admitted—we must wait to see; but, so far as we could gather from the speech of the right, hon. Gentleman, the measure is satisfactory and I trust, therefore, that the House will agree to the First and Second Readings, leaving all these details to be considered fully in Committee.
    MR. BARKERsaid that as employer of labour he believed this Bill could be very easily simplified so as to avoid trouble and uncertainty in various ways. He meant that it should provide for compensation for all accidents, and the compensation to begin from the date of the accident. That was, he believed, the only way to arrive at a solution of this matter which would be satisfactory to all interested.
    MR. BARNESsaid he wished to offer a few observations on the speech of the right hon. the Home Secretary and on the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman had asked leave to introduce into the House. First of all on behalf of the Party with which he was identified, he welcomed the right hon. Gentleman's statement of the projected Bill as being, to a large extent at all events, satisfactory from their point of view; and he could promise that it would have a helpful and sympathetic consideration with a view to having it amended in their direction and passed into law. It seemed to him that the name of the Bill was to some extent a misnomer. The Bill would not compensate. It provided merely for a maintenance being given to a man who was injured. Therefore, it seemed to the Labour Party that there should be some Amendment in the name of the Bill which would more accurately define what the Bill really was. On the whole, however, he felt satisfied that not only in its form but in its scope, as indicated in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the Bill would to a very large extent meet the wishes of the Labour

    901
    Party. The Act of 1897 had been of inestimable benefit to a very large number of working people throughout the length and breadth of the country. With all its defects and blemishes it had proved one of the best bits of social legislation that had been put on the Statute Book in recent years. He wished to go a little further, and to pay a well-merited tribute of indebtedness to one who was largely instrumental in getting that Act passed through Parliament. That right hon. Gentleman long ago contributed articles to magazines advocating what was then a novel principle in English law. He introduced that principle as an Amendment on the Bill of 1893, and had it afterwards successfully embodied in the Act of 1897. It was needless to say that reference was made to the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. He was all the more satisfied to pay that tribute of indebtedness to the right hon. Gentleman, for it was the vogue to jump upon his by no means prostrate form. A good deal had been said as to the deficiencies of the Act of 1897, but he believed that a great deal of the litigation and of the money which had found its way into the lawyers' pockets had been caused by the confusing lines between the "ins" and the "outs." He remembered the report of a debate eight or nine years ago in which it was predicted by hon. Gentlemen in this House, especially those who represented the mine-owners, that the Bill would lead to vast litigation; and some even went the length of describing it as a "Lawyers' Employment Bill." He had had a good deal of experience in regard to the working of the Act of 1897, and had had the opportunity of hearing the testimony of others who had had more, and all he could say was that the cases which had been settled and money paid without litigation at all was from 90 to 95 per cent. of the whole. From that point of view the Bill had been on the whole satisfactory; but there was no reason why the 5 or 10 per cent. of litigation should not also be reduced. In his belief, there would be no complete solution of the difficulty until all men, no matter what employment they were in, were included in the scope of the measure. It had been said that only dangerous trades were included in the last Act, but agricultural labourers were afterwards included, and no one would seriously contend that agriculture
    902
    was a dangerous employment. He was sorry to hear that while anyone employing more than five men was to be included in the Bill, all small employers having fewer than five employees were to be excluded. That would be a fruitful source of litigation and confusion which would only benefit the lawyers and the agents of the insurance companies. He hoped that the Bill would be amended in these respects. He knew many small workshops where fewer than five men were employed under the most dangerous conditions—probably more dangerous than in large workshops. But it would be no good including them on paper only. Therefore, if they were to be included there must be some provision whereby the money should be there when wanted. That carried with it some form of compulsory insurance. The right hon. Gentleman said that the time had not yet come for that. That remained to be seen. He was inclined to think that compulsory insurance would even now be necessary; but if the Bill was carried further than its present scope, he was certain that compulsory insurance would be absolutely necessary. He knew that there were some who said that compulsory insurance, or insurance of any character, carried with it increased risk. There might be something in that argument, but, after all, the contention seemed to him to be advanced by those who strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel. It was perfectly obvious that unnecessary danger was run by the men upon our railway systems, and that there were many safer couplings than those now in use, and yet the House refused to carry out the policy of enforcing the use of these couplings upon the railway companies. It was true that there were many ways and means by which the danger could be minimised, and, after all, insurance companies were not made up of simple Simons, and in many cases they refused to take premiums, because they knew that those who offered them had not taken the ordinary precautions which were necessary to ensure safety in their workshops. He thought that inspection was one of the best remedies. Let them increase the number of inspectors, and increase their power and draw the inspectors from the practical workshop, release the inspector from the large amount of clerical duty he had to perform, and, above all, let in the light of day upon the causes of those accidents which occurred through

    903
    the ignorance of unlearned men, or of inmature youths. He believed that in the direction he had alluded to lay the greatest field of promise, and that they ought not to disregard insurance. He knew that insurance had its evils, and quite agreed that the Government might take those evils into their consideration. When they did, he thought that the Government should offer some inducement to small employers to insure. He thought that the Government should go so far as to make the system of insurance compulsory; but if they were not disposed to go that length, he thought they might offer some alternative scheme of insurance as against private insurance, and induce small employers to insure through the agency of the Post Office. It ought, moreover, to be made impossible for insurance agents to do, as they did now, viz., go and visit men in hospital immediately after an injury and make bargains with them. This was most improper, as the men knowing nothing of the law, often assented to terms much below those to which they were entitled. The men often yielded to the temptation of receiving a lump sum, and he thought something ought to be done to make agreements entered into with an injured man under these circumstances absolutely null and void. In the third place, something should be done, he was not quite clear what, to prevent what now took place to some extent in regard to insurance companies coercing employers not to employ old men, or physically defective men. He learned with great gratification that those suffering from industrial diseases were to be dealt with by this Bill, but he was not quite sure that the best means were being taken towards a satisfactory solution. He understood that in order to carry out the idea of the Bill there would be some system of proportional liability placed upon the employers of labour who had employed an injured person, or a poisoned person. He was afraid that method was rather a clumsy one, as it would be very difficult to ascertain where a man got the disease or was poisoned. It would, moreover, be difficult to enforce the decision. A much more hopeful method would have been to do as was done in the Potteries, where a trade fund was created, and no matter where the man was injured, the compensation was taken from the trade fund, and spread
    904
    over the whole of the industry. As to the schedule of dangerous diseases, he noticed that anthrax was included, but thought that a good many more diseases might have been likewise put on the list. He rejoiced in the provision by means of which out-workers were to be protected, but he hoped the out-worker was not to be protected only if he happened to be working in a place which was scheduled as being engineering, harbour, or canal works. That did not carry them far enough. The out-worker might be working in a brewery which he did not think was scheduled. A good many outworkers, moreover, did work in places where they had to hang on by their eyebrows in order to stick up a pipe. Ho thought the only satisfactory provision would be one by which all out-workers would be protected. The provisions as to the assessment of weekly wages were on the whole satisfactory as far as they went—at all events, they were passable; but when they came to consider the question of reassessment, he thought the Home Secretary had given way too much to the representations of the employers. He hoped some rearrangement would be made which would practically leave the question in its present form, which, on the whole, worked fairly. At present there was a discretionary power vested in the County Court Judges, and it would be well if that power were left with them, because, on the whole, they had exercised their discretion with great wisdom. He thought the Home Secretary had quite unnecessarily called attention to the case of the old men. It was one of the most painful incidents in connection with our present industrial conditions that old men should be hurried out of our workshops. By calling attention to the old men, and making special provision for them, the attention of employers was called to the subject, and they were encouraged to get rid of them. He hoped that more generous provisions would be inserted in favour of this class of workers. As to minors, he thought the provisions of the Bill were on the whole satisfactory. He remembered acting on behalf of a young man, aged nineteen years, who had lost three fingers off one of his hands. He was just leaving his apprenticeship, and his pay was 7s. 6d. a week. He was paid 3s. 9d. a week for a few weeks, and then got nothing further. He took it

    905
    that the provisions of the Bill would make a far more generous provision in such a case as that. There was reason in the arrangement that the decision of the doctor, with regard to the extent of the injuries, should be taken as final; and it was fairly satisfactory provided the doctor was one in whom both sides would have confidence. In order to ensure that, it was necessary that the doctor be a public official, and he gathered that that would be the case. As to the fourteen days exemption, he understood that the Home Secretary had conceded half their demands, and he hoped he would concede three-quarters. They quite realised the fact that there was danger of malingering, because, after all, workmen were only human beings, and sometimes they tried to get a day's holiday. Trade unions thought if they paid after three days that was sufficient to prevent abuse, and to secure the society against malingering. He thought the hon. Gentleman might take that as satisfactory, and make his measure conform with that experience. Those who had previously been within the scope of the Act had been the best paid workmen; but they were now going to bring in the workmen whose wages were miserably small, and to whom a week on the sick-list would be a serious thing. Another point to which he would ask the right hon. Gentleman's generous consideration was the question of dependents. He would like to see the law of Scotland and England assimilated in this matter. He saw no objection to incorporating step-parents in "dependents," and if they brought in parents they might also under certain conditions bring in brothers and sisters. He was at the present moment acquainted with a man, the father of a family, whose house was being kept for him by his sister; and it would be a very serious thing for the sister if that man had an accident. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would include both these classes in "dependents," and thereby avoid a great deal of trouble. He was glad to hear of the repeal of part 1, Sub-section 5, and that their old friend "the undertaker" would disappear. He should also like to see the abolition of the twenty feet for quarries. That should also disappear as well as the thirty feet for houses. He welcomed the inclusion of seamen in this measure although he confessed that he was induced to sign the majority report of the Departmental
    906
    Committee, which had the effect of proposing that seamen should be dealt with under a special Act, because he believed there were special circumstances connected with the life of seamen which rendered the conditions of their inclusion in this Bill peculiar. He therefore ventured to hope that, as seamen were included, the provisions of Section 207 of the Merchant Shipping Act would also be included, so far as the seamen were concerned.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid they did not interfere with the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act in any way. This Bill only applied to the man injured when he was in England.
    MR. BARNESsaid, if that were so, of course it was quite right that the seamen should come under the Act. He would say nothing further now. There were other questions, but they be could dealt with in Committee. He would only ask the right hon. Gentleman to say, when he replied, in what way he was going to deal with the shop assistants. As he understood, shop assistants were not included in this Bill, and it was not proposed that they should be. There were, however, many shop assistants who were working under dangerous conditions. In his opinion shop assistants should be included, though they might not be employed under dangerous conditions. If there was little danger there would be specially low insurance premiums, and inasmuch as many of these persons were working in large warehouses which were analagous to work shops and factories, they should be brought within the Act. On the whole the Bill seemed satisfactory, and he welcomed it and hoped that during its passage through this House its scope would be widened to include those classes' to which he had alluded.
    SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that compulsory insurance in some form or other lay at the root of all the improvements to which the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division had alluded. The most extraordinary fact about all our legislation of this kind was that we never paid the slightest attention to what took place in other countries. We were hopelessly in the rear of every country in Europe in this matter, and owing to the fact that we never attended any of

    907
    the international conferences we did not know that all the problems which were being inquired into to-day had been inquired into and solved by every foreign country. That this country was not likely to adopt the German scheme had been very clearly seen before the introduction of the original Bill, and had been more clearly seen since. But the German scheme was not the last word that had been said upon this subject. The modified French scheme, which was being adopted by many other countries, might well be adopted here. All the suggestions which the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow had made had been met in France. Although the French law was exceedingly complicated and had not the simplicity of the German system, it met all these difficulties; and by its variable system of drawing insurances from four distinct sources gave everyone security. He did not, however, know how this question was to be raised on this Bill, because it was opposed to the whole form of the Bill and all our legislation on these matters. With regard to the second point raised by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division, there was no more interesting or difficult question than subcontracting. On that point he had not been able to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman said he had got rid of the "undertaker" altogether. That was not a word introduced by the late Government. It was a word introduced at the last moment in the House of Lords by a private peer, and in the face of the enormous difficulty which this question presented the noble Lords jumped at the the phrase. The question was a most difficult one and perplexed the House for a considerable time. There were cases in which it was desired to get at the subcontractor, and cases in which it was desired to get at the other man, and the difficulty was how to get at the man wanted. It was easy enough to say "you must go for 'A'" or "you must go for 'B'" but the difficulty of putting such a thing into the law was exceedingly great. It was the point on which the previous Act broke down, and was a most interesting and important point. Another matter in which the French law, imitated now in other countries, had met our difficulty was that of the definition of "workmen."
    908
    The question as to what men should be brought in as workmen was one that had caused a great deal of trouble. Among the miners, for instance, there were a great many persons who were partly workmen and partly employers in a small way. This question had at times given rise to a great deal of litigation. The French law dealt with this question by declaring that, over a certain rate of pay, the workmen should only be compensated to the extent of a proportion of his pay, and in that way it got over the question of the man who was partly a workman and partly an employer on a small scale. Let the House consider what it was they were asked to do. They were asked to exclude, arbitrarily from the benefit of this Bill as they had excluded from the benefits of the previous. Act, and from the Agricultural Acts, certain persons whose case was just as hard and whose case was absolutely indistinguishable from the case of those who were included in the scope of this Bill. The sense of irritation and injustice, which was always the result of exclusion and inclusion in this arbitrary manner, would continue a long time. In the sweated women's industries, such as the tailoring and shirt and collar trades, outwork was extending very fast; and although not specially subject to accidents there were some accidents to which the workers were liable. The exclusion of these was peculiarly hard, and one from which he thought on consideration the House would shrink. In this case and in that of the small workshops the exclusion was made because the Government were not prepared to make that breach in old traditions which every other country in Europe had made. If it were not too late he would add his voice to the appeal already made in favour of a complete assurance of every individual worker of every trade of the compensation which the House had intended him to have, and of which he was often deprived now by the mere operation of the law.
    MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid that as a director of one of the large mutual indemnity companies perhaps the House would allow him to say a few words from their point of view. They all knew that the object of the Act of 1897 was to grant compensation for

    909
    accident without proof of negligence, that another object was to provide machinery by which compensation could be arrived at without resort to law courts. That machinery had been entirely successful. During the year ending June last 349 claims came on the fund of the company in which he was interested, and of that number they settled 341 without litigation, generally through the Trade Union officials, who preferred dealing with the company rather than individual employers. The Government's proposals with regard to a medical referee would be a valuable improvement of the law, which on that point was at present a dead letter. He could only be called in at present by the county court judge after he had heard the evidence of both parties, and naturally the judge preferred to give his decision on the evidence which he had heard himself; the consequence being that the medical referees had not been required at all, and had been practically useless. The proposal now was that the medical referees should be public officials and should be called in as soon as possible, so as to avoid litigation. If that were done he felt that it would be a most admirable improvement of the present law. With regard to the burden of the Act, he thought there could be no doubt that the largest burden had fallen upon the coal trade. The large coal fields were unfortunately liable to accidents day by day. In Yorkshire they had an output of nearly 20,000,000 of tons per year, and they had paid in the seven years, ending June last, over £220,000 in compensation, but they could not tell what the full liability would be until the permanent cases, namely, those which lasted for more than six months, assumed their normal figures. In 1899–1900 they had fifty-six of these permanent cases, for which they paid £2,800; last year, ending June, the permanent cases had increased to 349 and the payment to over £22,000. Until the period arrived when the increase stopped it was therefore impossible to say what the permanent liability would be. He should like to point out that the decision to reduce from a fortnight to a week the period before the elapse of which no compensation was payable was against the recommendation of the Committee. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman knew that Messrs. Armstrong, at Elswick, before the Act of 1897 came into operation, had a scheme
    910
    by which workmen drew benefit after being disabled for three days, and the number of men disabled over three days was 12·3 per cent. per annum for the five years ending 1897. When the Act came into force they naturally dropped their private scheme, and the number of men disabled for over three days was reduced to 2·9 per cent. per annum for the five years ending 1903. That was some little evidence to show that if the period were reduced there would be a larger number of claims to be dealt with. With regard to industrial diseases, the Committee in their Report advised that such diseases should be provided for by a system of insurance. He quite agreed that those cases should receive compensation, but it would have been better if that had not been provided for under this Bill which referred entirely to accidents, as a disease could not be called an accident: However, the Government had no doubt come to their decision. Hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House would give the Bill their best consideration. With regard to old and infirm men, he was inclined to allow them to be compensated at a lower rate by agreement.
    MR. J. WARD: Why?
    MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: Because they were much more liable to be disabled permanently. The old men were suffering on account of this system because employers and insurance companies would not take the risk. The hon. Member for South Durham in his evidence before the Committee declared that he had no hesitation in saying that a very large number of the men discharged from the mines would not have been discharged had it not been for the Compensation Act. The object of the Government was to try and meet this case instead of the men being discharged. He hoped when the Bill was in Committee the Government would be prepared to listen to any reasonable Amendments put forward by the Mining Association of Great Britain and by others interested in this important question.
    MR. E. EDWARDSdesired to call attention to one phase of the question which had not been touched in the speech of the Home Secretary and that was the attitude of the Government towards the contracting-out clause.

    911
    Whilst fully sympathising with the right hon. Gentleman's view of this Bill and the great effort he was making to give the country an improved Workmen's Compensation Act, nevertheless it was the business of Labour Members to call attention to the position of the workers after some seven or eight years' experience of the Act now in force. His hon. friend opposite, the Member for the Blackfriars division of Glasgow, had paid a well-deserved compliment to the promoters of the Bill of seven or eight years ago, but he was not sure whether he had realised all the difficulties which some of them had realised, especially in regard to the great amount of litigation which had fallen upon them. If the Home Secretary, in his effort to consolidate this legislation, could give them a measure which would be free from litigation it would bring great credit to himself and to the House as well. He happened to be the chairman of a great union which, since the operation of the Act, at almost every executive meeting had been face to face with appeal cases, and they had been obliged to spend large sums of money in order to find out what the law was. He did not know whether the present House of Commons, having in it so many lawyers, would be able to improve matters in this respect. He remembered that the late Home Secretary, Sir Matthew White Ridley, once suggested to a deputation in regard to a rather important case that he would like the workmen to take it to the Appeal Court to find out what the law was. And so they did, and it cost them a great deal. They paid a very heavy price for finding out the law, and a great many men who did not belong to any trade unions had secured the advantage. The unions had also paid for what he thought it should have been the duty of the Home Office to find out for themselves. He gathered that this Bill was much on the lines of the measure brought in by the late Home Secretary. The Miners' Federation generally, with the men in Durham and Northumberland, offered their strongest protest against any Bill which did not pay from the commencement of the accident. Many things were said about the Workmen's Compensation Act at the time it was introduced as to the enormous cost it would entail upon employers, but the fears had proved absolutely groundless. It was said on
    912
    both sides of the House at that time that it would cost 3d., 6d., and in some cases as much as 10d. per ton, but now they had been told that the cost was less than 1d. per ton. In all great conciliation schemes the factor of the cost of production was always brought prominently forward, but now they would see that it did not fall upon the colliery proprietor but upon the workman himself. He wished to emphasise this point, because the great mass of the mining community were not the malingerers they were said to be. The friendly societies paid a man if he was off work for only a week. Passing through a time of bad trade, a man might only be working two or three days a week and consequently his compensation would be very small indeed. It was time that clause was amended, and if they were to have an amending Act they would rather wait this year and even next year in order to get a much stronger Act than to start off with seven days. The other point with which he wished to deal concerned the question of contracting out. If the two parties to a bargain were equal, there might be some force in contracting out, but experience in the operation of the clause had taught them that whatever in the judgment of the registrar was thought to be the right reading of the Act was forced on them, regardless of the view of the men. He offered their protest against this. If a contracting out clause was allowed to remain it should carry with it the right of the workmen to be consulted in any arrangement which was come to. But the workers would prefer that the clause should be left out altogether, and, having had a long experience, he wished to emphasise that point. Fortunately, explosions were not so frequent as formerly, but a disaster on a great scale would shake eight-tenths of the firms to their foundation, and some of them would prefer to go into the bankruptcy court rather than face their claims. It might be, therefore, that after all it was to the interest of the State itself that there should be some compulsory measure of insurance, not for small people alone, but for much larger interests also. Some colliery people had decided to insure among themselves, and so far as they knew they had met the claims against

    913
    them honourably. He hoped, in view of their importance, that the Home Secretary would give the House satisfactory assurances on these points, namely, that there should be no contracting out, and that those who met with accidents should get payment from the date of the injury. Everyone would re-echo the wish that had been expressed that the Act should work smoothly apart from either solicitors or medical men. But the workers had found that they were bound to take into account the solicitor and the medical man. They objected to a medical referee, as now understood, being the final authority. If they were to have him as a final authority, let him be a paid servant of the State, and then the workman would have some confidence in his decision. The members of the medical profession had used strong language in the columns of their medical journals condemning working men as lazy and indifferent, and any medical man who stooped to write such articles about working men was not a fit person to be a referee. The right hon. Gentleman had their warmest sympathy in regard to this Bill, but in the interests of a great organisation they desired certain Amendments.
    SIR BRAMPTON GURDONasked whether a man who was engaged in other work, such as delivering goods, met with an accident would he be entitled to compensation if it was not his ordinary work.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,): Yes, that case would be included.
    SIR BRAMPTON GURDONsaid he wished to know also whether gamekeepers would come under the Act. They were peculiarly liable to accident in many ways. He should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on avoiding the pitfall of slovenly drafting and on making the Bill a consolidating measure instead of legislating by reference.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid he recognised that the Government had in the Workmen's Compensation Bill brought forward a
    914
    very important measure, and he thanked them for having had the courage to include seamen within its scope. After all, it was only an act of justice which he had for a long time advocated, and he was pleased that at last there was a ray of hope and sunshine for the seamen in this matter. They were included in the right way. Compensation for seamen would only commence when they were landed in this country. Up to the time they landed here the ship owners had to provide for them. That placed the seaman in the same position as the working man on shore. He thought it would be found that there would be no great difficulty in applying the Act to seamen.
    MR. THEODORE TAYLORsaid he wanted to ask a question about the fortnight's exemption from liability on the part of the employers. It had always seemed to him that there was no real reason why this fortnight adopted as a bar to cases of malingering should be deducted in the case of serious accident which was clearly proved. He suggested that whether they reduced the period to three days, as had been suggested by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow or not, at all events they should provide that those who had suffered from serious accident should not suffer any reduction whatever. There had never been any reason in common sense for it. One other thing seemed to him to be a great omission, and one to which his attention had been drawn in connection with the people in his own employ, namely, the difficulty of establishing the case on the part of the worker, not only against any particular employer, but against the trained experts of the insurance companies, who were generally the defendants in such actions. In regard to members of large trade unions, they had their trade union secretaries to defend them, but that was an obligation which should not be put on trade unions. If Parliament established the moral right of an employee to compensation, the State should see that the poor and very often ignorant employee should be something more on a level with the parties against whom he had to make claims than the employee usually was. He certainly thought that a very simple scheme might be set up under this Bill, something

    915
    similar to that of the medical referee, some person appointed in the public interest, who would take up and investigate claims in order that there should be no bogus claims or trivial claims put forward. There should be some deposit made by the claimant, say 5s. or 10s., as an earnest of good faith. He himself, as an employer, who was insured against employer's liability, had over and over again remarked how, under present conditions, the employee was liable to be taken advantage of, or something like it. There should be no unfairness. Just imagine Jack Tar home from a voyage, or an agricultural labourer, having to put in a claim! He knew this to be a practical difficulty, and he urged the Home Secretary to adopt some practical solution. Another point in carrying out legislation of this kind was the invidious distinction which the Bill made. That led him to the conclusion that they would have to come to some system of State insurance. That was the only logical conclusion which would get rid of unnecessary expense and unnecessary distinctions. Why should the employees of the small employer not be protected? Why had the right hon. Gentleman abandoned hope of protecting this class? He had given a reason which was no doubt to some extent valid, but it seemed to him that these people had just as good a moral right to protection as the employees of larger employers. He did not know what public policy there could be in making this distinction, nor did he know why it should be more difficult to insure the employees of small employers in towns than in the country. Agricultural labourers in small numbers were not exempt. He asserted that the difficulty of looking after the claims of agricultural labourers was just as great as the difficulty of looking after the others. There was no predilection on his part for collectivism. He did not want to put on the State any more than he could help, but in this great question of compensation of workmen it did seem to him that it was the State alone that could effectively cope with it. There was one objection behind State action. He believed that the principle of State insurance did not tend to further security of life and limb. That was the fault of State insurance as well as private insurance, and he had no doubt that the Home Secretary was quite right when he said that they must look
    916
    for further security to more stringent factories and mines regulations where life and limb were concerned. He hoped the Home Secretary would kindly bear this point in mind on further consideration of the Bill. He was a bold man indeed, but he had earned the gratitude of both employer and employed when he proposed to make his Bill a Consolidating Act. They knew what a great benefit the Consolidated Factories Act of the late Mr. Ritchie conferred, and he was sure that the present Government in running the risk of a great many points of discussion had earned the gratitude of everybody. He hoped that those who might desire to impede the progress of the Bill for Party purposes would refrain from raising such points, and that as the Liberal Members helped the progress of the Factory Act the Conservative Members would return the compliment and help the House to make a good Consolidated Workmen's Compensation Act.
    MR. H. J. TENNANTsaid he wished to join in congratulating his right hon. friend on the introduction of this measure, which had been received with a chorus of approval. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough had in a great measure secured what he had been endeavouring to secure for the last eight or ten years in regard to seamen. He, like the hon. Member, saw a ray of hope with reference to an amendment of the law which he had during the same period been endeavouring to secure. He was glad that those unfortunate people who were employed in workshops were at last going to receive the benefits of this legislation. He pressed for their inclusion in the Act of 1897, but the Government of the day did not see their way to include them. He wished to refer to two points. One was the exclusion of workshops where only five men or under were employed, and the other was the limitation to which the hon. Member for the Radcliffe Division had just alluded. He saw no ground for excluding shop assistants from the scope of the Bill. There were a great many departments in which shop assistants were engaged. He did not know whether warehousemen would, in law, be regarded as shop assistants; but there were a great many occasions in which shop assistants were employed in warehouse work, and who would be deprived of the

    917
    benefit of the Act. Hoists, for instance, were a most fruitful source of accident, and one constantly read of the most distressing cases of bodily injury from such machinery. Then, it was known what great risks had to be run by the assistants who sold petrol. He had been very much disappointed at the limitation to workshops where five persons were employed. That was really an adaptation of one of the worst features of the whole industrial system; and it was known how that had been disastrous to the health and safety of the workers in the small exempted laundries. He joined in the appeal so eloquently made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, who urged some form of compulsory insurance. The very admirable memorandum by Sir Kenelm Digby on the practice of foreign countries in regard to particular forms of insurance had been referred to by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars division of Glasgow. He regretted that Sir Kenelm Digby had dealt more particularly with Germany, for he thought the conditions of the system there were not so applicable to this country as that which obtained in France. The limitation to five persons was wholly unnecessary. Why not have a scheme of grouping the trades and inducing the small employers to join together to pay compensation to their servants? That system had been tried in the Potteries, and was acting admirably. It might be true that persons who had been inoculated in the early stages with poison, and who had started on the down grade in health, might not easily get employment; it was also true that if there was a scheme of insurance of that kind mentioned, it might be perfectly possible to include small workshops with less than five; and there was no reason at all for excluding shop assistants. He wished to thank the Government most cordially for including in the scheme of compensation workpeople who had been injured in their health. That was only an act of justice to a large number of industrial soldiers who had fallen out by the way. The Home Office proposed to apply these provisions to anthrax, lead poisoning, mercurial poisoning, arsenical poisoning, miners' disease; he hoped they would also include poisoning from carbon sulphides, chemicals and explosives
    918
    where di-nitro-benzole was used, etc. There were dangers attending such trades as bronzing, paper-staining, millstone chipping, and india-rubber manufacture, and he hoped that these would be scheduled by the Home Secretary as dangerous for the purposes of this particular compensation Act. Those details, however, were more fitted to be dealt with in the Committee stage, and he would not labour them, but would conclude by once more expressing his gratitude to the right hon. the Home Secretary for the measure which he had introduced.
    MR. SEDDONsaid that the right hon. the Home Secretary had stated that he would welcome any suggestion for the improvement of the Bill. Now, he was in favour of the Bill, but he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be strong enough to include in its scope shop assistants. He had been more than surprised when he found that the right hon. Gentleman, after all the Liberal promises which had been made during the recent General Election, was prepared to perpetuate the very vicious system of differentiating between workmen and workmen. There were, in his opinion, only two classes— the worker and the idler; and all workers should come under any Compensation Bill passed by this Liberal Government. He believed he was the only man in the House who had first-hand experience of the changes that had taken place of late years in the distributive trade. Few people in the sphere of Members of this House had any conception of these enormous changes in the shops —changes almost as violent as in the manufactories of the country. Take the case of the grocery trade. It had become almost an engineering business. There were machines for weighing sugar, machines for parcelling, and machines for putting up provisions. In fact, if more machines were to be adopted in grocery stores the shop assistants would have to be skilled engineers. Then there were the great emporiums, not only in London, but in all the large towns throughout the country. There were in these emporiums not only hoists to be worked, but there were dark, subterranean passages which neither customers nor inspectors ever saw, in which many accidents happened to shop

    919
    assistants at the present time. With his practical experience of all these dangers, he wished to see abolished the vicious system of making any difference between the classes of the working people of the country. He pleaded with the right hon. Gentleman to bring the shop assistants, who numbered at least 250,000, within the scope of the Bill.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEYsaid he was very glad that there was only one note of opposition raised to the very excellent measure now before the House. The hon. Member for one of the divisions of Sheffield raised the question of the great cost which this measure would cast upon the employers. That should not stand in the way with us. It must be remembered that the profits which accrued to employers, as revealed in the income tax returns, were always swelling in a satisfactory way, while that was not the case with the manual workers of the country, who were chiefly concerned in the Bill under discussion. He particularly welcomed the extension of the provisions of the Act to cases of industrial disease It had already been ruled that anthrax came within the provisions of the existing law. If it had been decided that the introduction into the human body of the bacillus of anthrax constituted an accident they could hardly refuse to go further and say that when lead settled in the human frame that also constituted an accident. If the results of an organic disease like anthrax should be compensated, non-organic but equally distressing diseases like lead colic and phossy jaw could hardly be excluded. The Home Secretary could hardly fail to be impressed by the fact that most Members were in favour of universal compensation accompanied by compulsory insurance. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman himself favoured that solution of the problem, and he hoped that in the not distant future the present measure, excellent as it was, would be extended by the application of that principle. In the meantime he thought it hardly necessary that the Bill should make exceptions both as to numbers and as to trades. If the measure excepted the small employer, whether shopkeeper or manufacturer, that should be sufficient without excepting certain trades and clerks, shop-assistants, and
    920
    domestic servants. He hoped the Home Secretary would on Committee stage accept an Amendment to that effect. With regard to agriculture, also, there was a danger lest the exception of farmers who did not employ one labourer permanently should lead the small farmer to do without permanent hands, and therefore avoid the provisions of the Act. But whatever was done in regard to compensating workmen, he hoped it would be remembered that there were industrial diseases like consumption which could not be brought under the Act, though arising from the conditions of employment; and he hoped that there would be no relaxation in the inspection of factories, and in other forms of protection for those who chiefly bore the heat and burden of the day.
    MR. COCHRANEthought the Home Secretary had every reason to be content with the general tone of the criticism of his Bill, and he hoped that the remarks he should make would prove no exception to the rule. There were one or two points which they must bear in mind in considering a question of this kind. They must not only endeavour to secure a fair remuneration for the workers, but also have regard to security of life and limb. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1897 laid great stress upon that. He had hoped that his right hon. friend would have found some other means than were contained in this Bill for carrying so desirable an object into effect. The other point was what amount of compensation could be considered fair. One could never really actually compensate a man for any serious injury, say the loss of an eye, an arm or a limb, and where a man lost his life no amount of solatium given to those dependent upon him could entirely compensate them. It was necesssary, especially in the case of widows and young persons that the amount of compensation recovered should be invested so that the interest should not be wasted and should pass into the proper hands. No doubt in the case of the injured man he must bear some part of the cost and burden resulting from an accident in the way of ill-health, and he thought they could all sympathise with him. And it was their duty so far as they could to lighten that burden as far as was just and equitable in the interests of the country generally.

    921
    The hon. Member for North Paddington seemed to think that all employers were wealthy persons, and that all this House had to do was to place the burden upon them and that they could bear it. But that was not the case, and many who would come within the provisions of this Bill would be exceedingly poor men. However sympathetic, therefore, they might be with workmen they must not place too large a burden upon the man who was only just above the workman, as this meant that in the case of any serious accident they would make the small employer bankrupt, and the workman would get no compensation at all. The right hon. Gentleman having said that some 25 per cent. of these small employers were not insured, there seemed room for some general scheme of compensation to which contributions might be made from some source other than from the employers and the men. The general sketch of the Bill given by the right hon. Gentleman showed that it was not lacking in amplitude. The right hon. Gentleman intended to include all those employers who employed five men and upwards, and that large increase in the scope of the Bill might place some obstacle in the way of its steady passage into law. The Party of which he was a Member had always been favourable to the fuller extension of the Workmen's Compensation Act, but it was desirable to move cautiously. There was a strong feeling in some quarters against Workmen's Compensation being applied indiscriminately to all trades, and the right hon. Gentleman proposed to reverse the practice of his predecessors, and at one stroke to include all trades with certain exceptions. He proposed only to exclude police, shopkeepers, clerks and some others. The right hon. Gentleman said nothing about the Naval and Military services of the Crown. He did not, moreover, know why the policeman should be excluded upon the argument, which had been adduced, that it was desirable to widely extend the Act. The same observation would apply to the other classes whom the right hon. Gentleman intended to exclude from the benefit of the measure. It was a happy result that after nine years experience both Parties had agreed to endorse the principle then laid down by extending the scope of the Act, and remedying the defects that had been found to exist. In the past there had
    922
    every where been an unnecessary amount of litigation, and Scotland had been a great offender in that matter. In some cases the heavy costs had altogether exceeded the amount of the compensation awarded. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman had considered that matter, and that this Bill would result in less litigation and a bigger fund for the benefit of sufferers. With regard to the provision for the reduction of the fourteen days, the Act of 1897 provided that an employer should not be responsible under the Act unless a man was prevented from working for fourteen days. That was a most important provision. The Departmental Committee expressed the opinion that—
    "Practical considerations such as are indicated in the evidence above quoted makes us altogether, apart from the question of principle, reluctant to propose any interference with the existing provision."
    There were also many expressions of opinion in the House at the time that Act was before it. One hon. Member when the Act of 1897 was under discussion was in favour of extending the period of fourteen days to one month. That hon. Member was now the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury. He (Mr. Cochrane) did not know what action the hon. Gentleman proposed to take now. Then the consideration of costs came in. Undoubtedly there would be an alarming addition to the costs because, as Mr. Brabrook, the late Registrar of Friendly Societies, pointed out, the amount paid in respect of the first two weeks was 63¾ per cent. of the amount paid after two weeks, whilst insurance companies estimated that the amount paid in respect of the first week was from 25 to 50 per cent. Their duty was to point out these facts to the right hon. Gentleman and point to the weighty expressions of opinion that appeared in the Blue-book, and to express the hope that he had acquainted himself with those expressions of opinion, and had been guided by new facts that might have arisen since the date of the issue of the Report of the Departmental Committee in proposing this reduction, the responsibility for which rested on the right hon. Gentleman. Then as to the inclusion of diseases. Every one felt that injury which arose from a disease contracted through a particular occupation was as serious in its consequences to a man and his family as

    923
    any other accident, but there was some difficulty in dealing with such cases under this Bill. An accident must arise "out of" as well as "in the course of their employment by him." The right hon. Gentleman said that he was going to throw upon the employers a collective responsibility, but it would be very difficult to do so and to determine whether a disease was inherited, whether it was contracted before the employment, or whether it was contracted at home. One of the greatest difficulties would occur in the case of lead poisoning, where a man having suffered from lead poisoning had recovered and applied again for work. If such a man had the least sign of blue round his gums, he would not be again employed, as lead poisoning being latent in his system might appear in an aggravated form and the immediate employer would find it very hard to prove that the illness was not contracted in his employ. He thought the best way to deal with cases of that kind would be to make the whole trade responsible, and not to pass the responsibility on from one employer to another. The hon. Member for North Paddington had said that anthrax had been held to be an accident, but in that case the ruling; of the Judge was certainly not a general ruling. The general rule was expressed by the Court of Appeal, which laid down the principle that—
    "An injury can only be said to be an accident if it can be ascribed to a particular place and a particular date, and if it can be regarded as an accident in the popular and ordinary sense of the word."
    Such accidents as lead poisoning could only lead to litigation, and were not suitable for inclusion in this Bill. He welcomed the provision dealing with the aged and infirm and the provision by which an employer might contract to give a reasonable and fair sum to persons injured in some previous employment. The clause dealing with the seamen was a very important one. The men the right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to include were an important class, and their case was one which excited the sympathy of every Member of the House. They recognised that these men were only partially covered by the Merchant Shipping Act, but, here again, he thought special legislation was required. Let them take the case where a ship was in distress and another ship came
    924
    to her assistance and a boat was lowered and lost. What would be the view in the mind of the ship's captain who had to report that a serious accident had taken place resulting in the loss of two or three lives? It appeared to him they were placing a great responsibility upon such a man and making it very difficult for him to carry out what they all considered was the highest duty of man, namely, to go to the assistance of another in distress. There must be some special legislation to deal with that point and the State might well be called in to bear a part of the loss incurred in such circumstances. Were fishermen to be included? They were not included in the Bill introduced by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1893. He felt, and a great many would feel, that they were placing a great burden on the owner of a boat, who was often a partner of the men who formed his crew, if they made him responsible for all the accidents that befell those with whom he was working. There was no reason why they should not be compensated, but there must be special legislation to that end. The only other observation he had to make was as to the scope of the Bill. The Bill of last year would have included, an addition of a million workmen, and an indefinite addition was to be made to that number. He again pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman the warning of the Departmental Committee, who said on page 314 of their Report—
    "What seems to us important is that no considerable addition beyond what we have recommended should be made to the classes at present receiving the benefit of the Act without full inquiry into the circumstances of the particular employment, with a view of ascertaining whether the extension is needed, whether it will work effectively, and whether any special provisions or conditions are required or desirable."
    Had the right hon. Gentleman had the opportunity of making full and exhaustive inquiry before making proposals to add so many to the schedules of those who were in future to come under the Act? He feared that the right hon. Gentleman had not had sufficient leisure since succeeding to office and it was therefore all the more necessary that he should give the House the fullest opportunities for freely discussing the Bill. They on that side of the House had always been sympathetic to the objects aimed at

    925
    by the Bill and towards all proposals for giving greater security and adequate compensation to the workmen and for avoiding litigation, and he thought he might assure the right hon. Gentleman that he might rely on the criticisms of those on that side of the House being of a perfectly fair and not of an unfriendly character.
    THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,)said the hon. Gentleman was perfectly entitled to make the claim which he had just made on behalf of the Party to which he belonged. He and those associated with him had been and were always willing to consider in a sympathetic spirit measures of the class to which this Bill belonged. The hon. Gentleman's Party was honourably associated with, and might claim the principal place in the initiation of, legislation of this particular character. Though it was not very satisfactory to conduct anything in the nature of a general discussion on a Bill which was not in the hands of hon. Members, one or two points had been raised in the debate upon which he thought some observations might be made. Special reference had been made to the limit of five which appeared in the Bill. The House would understand that the Bill applied to all employments except the excepted employments, which were not many in number and which did not include the class generally understood as workmen. It not only covered all employed, but it also covered all persons employed in those trades which had been generally understood to be more or less dangerous trades. The limit of five did not apply to cases where machinery was used. That would cover the case of the shop assistant employed on a lift.
    AN HON. MEMBER: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that the Judges of the Court of Appeal would interpret the Act in that sense?
    SIR W. ROBSONsaid perhaps he was wrong in using the term shop assistant. At all events those working lifts or machinery and who were workmen would undoubtedly be included within the terms of the Act. That was a very wide extension of the benefits of the Act. The same observation applied to those who where engaged in building opera-
    926
    tions, in mining or in quarries, and in laying electric lines or works. The limitation of five applied to other employments. All the dangerous trades, practically, were included in the Bill. There were many trades which were not absolutely dangerous, in which there were small risks and small premiums. But, when they got to the small employers in those trades, they got the small risk but by no means the small premium. The insurance companies, in those cases, insisted on a minimum premium. In farming, for instance, where the risk was small, the premium ranged from 7s. 6d. to 10s. per cent., which represented ten or a dozen times the risk. The result would be that the small employer in a non-dangerous trade would not be insured, and that, if they were to take him into the Bill, they would be conferring on the workmen in that trade an illusory benefit. These small employers were, in truth, nothing but fellow workmen. Suppose, in the case of the village bootmaker, the apprentice who was sent with a pair of boots to a customer was injured in the course of delivering the goods by some accident in the road. Then this small trader might be called upon to pay the sum of 10s. a week, it might be for life, to a man who was very little removed in commercial and manufacturing status from himself. The Government had to consider that. Hon. Members might be quite certain that those who had framed the Bill considered every one of these cases in a most sympathetic spirit. They had considered them with no desire to make exclusions, but in a spirit desirous of making every inclusion that was possible, and they had come to the conclusion that it would not be desirable to include small employers to whom the whole principle of personal liability for workmen's compensation was inappropriate, because they were, in fact, workmen themselves. It had been suggested that the men thus employed should have some means of deriving equal benefits with their fellow-workmen by some other machinery than that which was provided by this Bill. That was a very fair matter for consideration, which was not excluded by the Bill. The Government did no prevent that further extension of this legislation by their proposals. On the contrary, they led the House and the country up to it. The experience of the

    927
    working of the Bill among small employers in dangerous trades would greatly help and guide those who desired to make a still further extension of the principle to workmen in non-dangerous trades. As to State insurance, the Government were certainly not desirous of encumbering this Bill, already of dimensions dangerously great, with a proposal so disputable as that. No doubt his right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean would raise the question in Committee, but he was not sure that it was an exactly accurate statement of the facts to say, as his right hon. friend had said, that England was behind every country in Europe in legislation of this kind. There was a sound and substantial reason for limiting at present the benefits of such legislation. The limitations were very small indeed compared with the enormous extensions.
    MR. THORNEIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that thousands of carmen will be shut out of this Bill?
    SIR W. ROBSONsaid that was dealt with already under the provisions of the Bill.
    MR. JENKINSasked if two men working on board a ship scheduled as a factory would be excluded from the operation of the Act.
    SIR W. ROBSONthought such a case would come under the provisions of the Act. Something had been said with regard to out-workers, and he was desirous that the word should be used in its proper sense. What they meant by an out-worker was a person to whom work was given to do at his own house, where he was not under the control of the master at all, and to whom the whole machinery of the Act was inapplicable. That was the kind of out-worker who was excluded. With regard to industrial diseases, the provisions of the Bill were of a limited class, one might say of an experimental class. They did not by any means attempt to define industrial disease in general; they only specified certain diseases which were known to arise from particular causes which could be easily traced and identified, and as to which they could also form a very fair estimate of the time when they
    928
    arose. Those carefully specified diseases were made the subject of compensation as if they were accidents, because they were nearly all cases very much like accidents. With regard to seamen, for long it had been recognised that they ought to be included within the provisions of some Act of this kind, and the reason advanced for their exclusion ought rather to have been a paramount reason for their inclusion— namely, that accidents were so common in that employment that the premium would be too serious for the masters to incur. He thought that was now an exploded idea. He had had the honour as a private Member of proposing a measure for the inclusion of seamen in such benefits, and that was laid before the ship owners and met with very general agreement. As far as the shipbuilding trade was concerned, he believed they did not look with any special dislike on the inclusion of seamen. No doubt in Committee details would be dealt with which it was not convenient to discuss at the present stage, but he thought that they might now agree on the principle of the Bill. He suggested that the Motion before the House should be amended as follows, since the Bill was also a consolidating measure—
    "Bill to consolidate and amend the law with respect to compensation to workmen for injury suffered in the course of their employment."
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.),who was indistinctly heard, said he quite appreciated the reasonableness of the appeal made by the hon. and learned Gentleman that they should not go into very great detail as to the innumerable cases which might arise under this Act until, at all events, the full text was before them. In the case of similar Bills he knew how easy it was to misunderstand, and how time was wasted by not deferring consideration for a period. At the same time, in a matter of this sort, whore the interest was so universal, it was very desirable to take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the First Reading to get a clear and distinct understanding as to the main provisions of the Bill. He himself in previous years had taken a very great personal interest in this subject. His hon. friend the Member for North Ayrshire had said with great truth that on that side of the House there certainly could not be any objection to the principle of the Bill, which was, if he might put it shortly, to extend

    929
    the advantages of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had said that in a matter of this kind it was wise to proceed step by step, and had objected to encumber such an Act with proposals which might tome at a subsequent time, and which would introduce considerable matter for discussion, such as that for State insurance. He entirely agreed, and would point out that this principle of compensation was one of the charges which properly belonged to the trade in which the accident took place. When the principle was first introduced in 1892 there was still more reason why those who were answerable for such a novelty should limit considerably its immediate application. He thought it would be found by reference to the debates of that time that his friend the late Lord Ridley, then Home Secretary, and he himself, in speaking on this subject, while protesting against any attempt to overload the Bill at that moment, and considering it as an experiment, nevertheless showed very clearly their own wish and desire that it should be largely extended if it proved to be, as they thought it would, a very great success. Speaking for himself, there was hardly any extension of it which he would not welcome. The first remark he had to make with regard to some of the exclusions was that even now he did not quite understand them. He understood from what had been said at an earlier period that the Bill excepted employments in which not more than five persons were engaged. But, if he had followed the hon. and learned Gentleman, another condition of exemption was made—namely, that there was no machinery.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid that in the clause which governed the exclusions there were certain limitations. There was liability for compensation where the accident was attributable to the use by the employer of machinery driven by steam, water, or other mechanical power, or where a workman at the time of the accident had the care or management of a horse, or was engaged in mining or quarrying, or building operations, or laying or repairing any electric lines or works.
    MR. J. CHAMBEBLAINconfessed that he did not understand the principle
    930
    of that. He himself would be inclined to include small shops. He could not quite see how they could fairly include a shop where there happened to be a lathe, as, for instance, a blacksmith's shop in a village, where there were less than five workpeople, while at the same time excluding a similar shop which had not a lathe but where a man might be injured by a hammer or by a hot iron. Was not such a case as that deserving of compensation? In excluding small workshops it was proposed to go a great deal further than he himself would like to go, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his position in regard to this matter. Then, again, for the life of him he could not understand why apparently a whole class, one of the most deserving in the country, was excluded—he meant clerks. There was no class with which he had more sympathy than clerks; they had to make a good appearance on very small means, they had to have a superior education, and he thought they certainly were deserving of the consideration that was shown to workmen. In many cases they took similar risks with workmen. He remembered an accident that happened in Birmingham—a boiler explosion, when the boiler was flung bodily by the explosion through the office, and serious injury was sustained by some of the clerks. On what possible ground in any such case could clerks be fairly excluded and workmen included? He hoped that when they came to the discussion of matters of detail clerks would be included. It has been strongly urged that domestic servants might be included in this Bill. He was in favour of including them. They might exclude very small houses. He knew by his own experience that insurance of domestic servants could be obtained at very small expense. With regard to seamen, he was not quite certain whether it was intended in the case of accidents on board ship to force the British owner to compensate alien seamen.
    MR. GLADSTONE: If an alien is in a British ship or in England he gets the benefit.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAINthought that reasonable enough. He would proceed a step further. They were going to compensate the alien, and throw upon the English shipowner the expense

    931
    of compensating not only British but alien seamen. There was a Shipping Bill before the House by which perhaps this subject might have been more satisfactorily dealt with. At all events, they were told that it was intended to equalise the conditions as between British and foreign shipping, and that they were going to force foreigners who came into our harbours to adopt the same precautions which were considered necessary in British ships. He thought that was perfectly fair. He hoped it would be remembered that there was a new obligation upon the British shipowner, and Parliament ought to enforce the same obligation to insure their seamen on the owners of foreign ships coming into our harbours, and to take the same precautions with regard to life. These were points to which he wished to direct attention at this early period. Questions of the greatest importance affecting enormous numbers of workmen would necessarily come up in the discussions on this Bill, and he presumed that the measure would be dealt with by Committee of the Whole House, and that there would be no attempt to take the Committee stage out of the control of the House. He said that with all friendship to the Bill, because he was not certain that by taking it upstairs they would prevent the House at subsequent stages from giving great attention to the details. It would not be so convenient to deal with the details of the measure in that way as in Committee of the Whole House. There was no desire to obstruct the Bill in any part of the House. But, in regard to the time before the demand for compensation should commence to be paid, he would press the representatives of the working men, both inside and outside the House, to consider very carefully whether a provision which at first sight might appear to be to the advantage of the workmen, might not ultimately be not so much to the disadvantage of the manufacturer or the employer, as to the workman himself. They should not desire to press on the employer any expenditure which was not clearly in the interest of the workmen; because, after all, whatever political economists might say on the subject, they all knew that one of the factors in wages was the expense of production, and if the expense of production was raised beyond certain limits by legislation, it was con-
    932
    ceivable that some part of that charge might he transferred by the employer on to the workmen. Before the Bill of 1897 was introduced he consulted a large number of people acquainted with the principles of compensation insurance, some of the principal officials of the great friendly and benefit societies in this country, and representatives of insurance companies. They all pressed upon him that in the interests of the workman, as well as of the employer, a distinct and definite period should lapse before compensation was payable. The reason was that, after all, there was no great pressure for compensation where the accident was so slight as to be represented by no more than a fortnight's illness. In the second place, it was found by some of the friendly societies necessary to protect themselves by a delay before compensation became payable, in order to prevent fraud. He asked whether it was worth while putting 50 per cent. more expense upon the employer in order merely to get compensation for the first fortnight's absence from work. He urged the representatives of the workmen to consider whether it was in their interests to press for an alteration in the law which would be found to be extremely unpopularand would place an increased charge on employers everywhere. When the Bill of 1897 was before the House he had returns furnished to him of the number of accidents which took place in every great trade in the country, and calculations were deduced from these returns as to what the operation of the Bill would cost. At the time he believed that the statements made by the opponents of the Bill as to its cost were greatly exaggerated, and that had been proved to be the case, because after some years experience of the working of the Act it was found that his original calculations were absolutely correct. He was informed that of late years there had been a considerable increase in the number of accidents. Why was that? [An HON. MEMBER on the LABOUR Benches: Speeding up the machinery.] Well, if speeding up machinery had taken place, with the result of an increase in the number of accidents, then he for one was glad that means were provided for compensation. If the House reduced the close period, as it had been called, to seven days, he thought they would open the way to a great deal more litigation, and to that

    933
    extent they would injure rather then benefit the working classes.
    MR. J. W. WILSONrecognised the appeal which had been made that the House should not treat this as a Second Reading debate. He wished, however, to make a few remarks in regard to the last point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken. Under the last Compensation Act several classes of workers were deprived of its benefits, and were thus seriously injured. He could not see why in serious accidents compensation should not be payable during the first week following an accident, and he put it to the Home Secretary that he would confer a greater benefit upon the working classes if he would make compensation date from the time when the accident took place rather than by altering the qualifying period. He did not think that by this means they would increase the claims which would be made under the Bill, or in any way bring it into disrepute. The Home Secretary had spoken of this as a consolidating measure, but it included only the Compensation Acts of 1897 and 1902. He thought it might be possible to provide one measure which should include all the Employers' Liabilities Laws concerning the relations between workmen and employers, and that such a Bill was wanted by the country. He welcomed the present Bill, however, and would do all he could to support it.
    MR. J. WARDsaid that trades unionists wanted a promise from the Home Secretary that he would make provision that no person at present included in the scope of the Acts should be excluded from the right to compensation by the Bill. Labour Members could not support a measure which would exclude some people who were now entitled to the benefits of the existing Compensation Acts. Since they had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham practically a member of the trades union group, they would get a good Bill.
    MR. SPICERsaid he was in favour of the inclusion of clerks, shop assistants, and domestic servants within the purview of the Bill. Domestic servants were of great assistance to us all, and it would be sheer ingratitude to
    934
    exclude them from the Act. He was also unable to understand why clerks should be excluded. He thought that the learned Solicitor-General touched rather a lower key than the Home Secretary. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to say that the Bill had been built up by a recognition of dangerous trades. He maintained that the classes whose cause they advocated ran as much risk as those who worked in factories and workshops. Take the fiat system, with its tenements and lifts. The servant ran as much risk there as in any factory.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill to consolidate and amend the law with respect to Compensation to Workmen for injuries suffered in the course of their employment, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary Gladstone, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Solicitor General, and Mr. Herbert Samuel.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
    "To consolidate and amend the law with respect to Compensation to Workmen for injuries suffered in the course of their employment," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 123].

    POLICE (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [6th March], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Question again proposed.
    MR. COCHRANEsaid that this Bill was similar to one which he had the honour to introduce in 1904. That Bill made considerable progress through the House, was passed successfully through the Grand Committee and its Report Stage, but unfortunately met with opposition from the hon. Member for Mid Lanark, and was thrown out on its Third Reading. He hoped the hon. Gentleman opposite would on this occasion be more successful. The provisions of the Police Act of 1890 were, on the whole, liberal so far as the policeman was concerned. That Act provided that a policeman who became incapacitated and who had not served fifteen years got a gratuity on a

    935
    medical certificate. After fifteen years service, on a medical certificate as to infirmity of mind or body he got a pension. After twenty-five years service he was entitled to retire on a pension, and after twenty-six years service his pension was to be two-thirds of his pay. It was obvious to everyday that a policeman who had joined the force at twenty years of age might retire at the age of forty-six in the prime of his life, when he was seasoned to his duties and full of that experience without which the policeman's lot was not a happy one. The object of this Bill was to give a man some incentive to remain in the service a few years longer and thereby to improve the sevice and his own position. But the difficulty was that the policeman, having earned a pension, felt that for some trifling fault he might be discharged from the service and lose that pension, for which he had served for twenty-six years. He thought that if the pension was earmarked to the policeman so that if he served a few more years it would still be secure to him and that he would not lose it except he committed the very gravest offences that difficulty might be got over. Again he had to complain of the action of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark in this matter. The Scotch police had a much harder life than the English police, and they were not entitled to a pension of two-thirds of their pay until they had completed thirty-four years service and had reached the age of fifty-five. The Scottish police were as able as the police of this county; the climate in which they had to serve was not less inclement than that of England, and he certainly hoped that whatever little advantage might accrue to the police of this county through the passage of this Bill would also be extended to the Scottish service. This Bill, he thought, would have a very great effect in raising the very heavy burden that fell upon the rates. In 1902, when the Act had only been in force sixteen years, the total expenditure for police pensions in England and Wales amounted to £434,737, which showed an annual excess of expenditure over income of £93,627. If to that was added London expenditure the total annual dificit came to £170,000. That showed a very serious state of affairs. The result of this Bill would be a smaller drain on the pension fund. No one wished to reduce the pensions of policemen;
    936
    no one grudged them what they got, and he was sure that many men would be willing to serve if their pensions were made safe. This Bill was a permissive Bill, and went in the direction of giving that security of tenure which the police had not now got. One safeguard, and a very proper one, was provided in the Bill, and that was that a policeman before he was engaged in this way must be physically fit and must pass a medical inspection to show that he was fit. The Bill met geenrally with the approval of the police authorities and would, if passed, he believed, add to the efficiency of the force by keeping men of experience in it. The clause dealing with "discontinuous service" was fair and right, and the clause dealing with "approved service" extremely good. He was glad to be able to give the Bill his blessing.
    MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid he had been asked by the chief constable of Sheffield to draw attention to a little grievance which was felt with regard to a few words in Section 4, Sub-section 4, of the Police Act of 1890. It was there provided that in cases where a police officer had been in more than one force, service of less than three years in any one force was not to count towards approved service. It could easily be imagined that police officers often remained in the force less than three years, and if they then they changed into another force the whole of this service was lost. It was felt that a policeman ought to be allowed to count his continuous service, even if in one force he had been less than three years. He hoped the Secretary of State for the Home Department would consider the matter.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid this was a Bill more or less, similar to one which was introduced by the late Secretary of State for the Home Department, and, whilst one approached this measure with sympathy, there were parts which did not invite support. In the first place, there could be no doubt that certain provisions would stop promotion in the police force throughout the country, and would be therefore unpopular among the younger members of the force. Another objection was that no provision was made in the Bill to make special payments count for pension. That question had for long been a grievance among the

    937
    police, and the grievance was the more acute because when some of their superior officers received special allowances, they were allowed to count for pension. He earnestly hoped that those who represented the Home Office would give some undertaking that in Committee the provisions of the Bill would be extended to meet the objection he had raised. In the last two or three years there had been occasion to note the increasing number of duties performed by the police, involving better education, higher skill, and greater risk, and surely the time had come when competence in foreign languages should count for increased pay and increased pension. Take London for instance. Only the other day the Secretary of State for the Home Department, informed the House that 100 or 200 of the Metropolitan police had to acquire facility in the Yiddish language in order to discharge their duties in the London streets.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid that question was not relevant to the Bill.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he was endeavouring to show how increased allowances ought to count towards pensions, which was not the case in the lower ranks of the police force. It was a grievance which was keenly felt by the general body of the police force, and at this season, when the Government was giving sympathetic ear to the claims of the different branches of the public service, he hoped the police would not be an exception to the rule. As a Scotchman he wished to enforce the appeal in respect of the police force in Scotland. It did seem very hard that if a man took employment in the police force north of the Tweed he should have to serve thirty-four years in a more rigorous climate, as compared with twenty-six years in the sunny south of England, before being entitled to a pension He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would appreciate the valuable services of these men by unifying the various rules and making the whole of the conditions of the service more popular.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc.

    POST OFFICE (MONEY ORDERS) BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    SIR EDWARD CARSONasked if somebody would explain what the Bill was about.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr.SYDNEY BUXTON,)said it was simply to extend existing regulations to places to which they did not now apply. He had not got a copy of the Bill with him.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYasked if he understood that though the right hon. Gentleman had not got a copy of the Bill with him he proposed to ask the House to read it a second time. He was bound to say that amongst many others he had not had an opportunity of studying the Bill. He begged to moved the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned." (Mr. Claude Hay.)
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONhoped the hon. Member would not persist in his Motion.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he did not know what the Bill was for.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that that was not his fault; the Bill had been circulated for some time.
    And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate lapsed without Question put.
    And the debate on the Second Reading stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

  EVENING SITTING

    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (ELECTRIC SUPPLY) BILL (BY ORDER).
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. W. F. D. SMITHin moving that the Bill be road a second time this day six months, said it was rather inconvenient on this occasion that those who supported the Second Reading of the Bill should have taken the course which had been taken, and which was not the usual course taken on the Second Reading of Private Bills. The subject with which the Bill dealt was of great public importance. It might have been useful if the House had received a suggestion from the representatives of the County Council as to the course they intended to pursue with reference to this question as a whole. The suggestion, however, had not yet been made, and therefore he could only suppose that the Council were carrying out what had been suggested outside this House, namely, their desire to pass this Bill and to oppose all other measures introduced into this House relating to the same subject. There were two courses open to the London County Council in this matter. The Council might either have adopted the course he had suggested, or they might have referred the whole question to a Select Committee or a Royal Commission in order that the scheme might be considered without prejudice, and with the view of some satisfactory conclusion being arrived at with which this House might have been asked to deal. The first course, how ever, was the one the County Council desired to take, and he wished to say at once that he considered the course most unfortunate and most unreasonable. There were two other considerations to which the attention of the House ought to be drawn. The scheme as suggested by the County Council was undoubtedly ill-prepared and showed an utter disregard of the financial considerations. It was, moreover, a scheme which partook largely of a speculative character, and was, therefore, in his opinion, not suited for the purposes of municipal enterprise. He suggested that the proposals which the
    940
    County Council were making to-day were contrary to the understanding arrived at in 1882 and 1887. That argument was used successfully against the Administrative County of London Bill introduced last year, and would equally apply to this Bill. It appeared to him that the London County Council in the present Bill were, without justification, asking the House to break the arrangement come to in 1882 and 1887. The present scheme of the Council was to include not only the area for which they was responsible, but an area more than three times the size of the County Council area, including a considerable part of the counties which surround London, and containing 380 square miles. The area under the control of the County Council was one of 117 square miles. He doubted, indeed, whether the County Council looked upon this proposal of theirs as a serious matter of business. Personally he was inclined to think that the Council were anxious to gain a strategic position which would, in fact, give them a virtual monopoly—to exclude all private enterprise from the area sought to be covered by this scheme. In reciting the history of the Bill, and the curious and rapid changes of opinion on the part of the London County Council, he showed that last year, when the Administrative County of London Bill was introduced, the County Council in their petition denied that there was any public necessity for a scheme of this kind. When the measure wont to the House of Lords the Council dropped that plea and asked Parliament to consider whether it was desirable that a monopoly should be conferred on a company seeking such large powers as those embodied in the Bill. Last November, however, the County Council admitted the necessity, but urged that the Council was the only body which should be entrusted with the carrying out of the scheme. Private enterprise having made the discovery that the supply of electricity in bulk was necessary for industrial purposes in the Metropolis, the London County Council now came forward with a demand to exclude all private enterprise. The course pursued by the London County Council was most unreasonable. The merits of the other two Bills on the Paper†
    †Additional Electrical Power Supply (London) Bill. Administrative County of London and District Electric Power Bill.

    941
    were not to be considered at all. Only one scheme was to be considered and the whole future of the management of the supply of electricity in bulk in this large area was to be settled in principle in this debate. Whether hon. Gentleman opposite who supported private enterprise last year were now going to submit to the dictation of the London County Council he did not know, but if they were, then they would endorse the principle that private enterprise was for ever to be excluded from this area. With regard to the merits of this particular Bill, he believed that the scheme which the House was now considering was reckless in its character owing to its want of preparation and its lack of financial caution. What was the history of the Bill? When in November last the Highways Committee of the County Council brought forward a report suggesting that a Bill should be introduced, the Finance Committee viewed the proposal with a great deal of apprehension, and this view was strongly backed up by Sir F. Mowatt, who, however, was able subsequently to vote for the proposal of the Finance Committee. Later, however, the Finance Committee brought in a stronger report relating to some of the details of the scheme, and it was then said that there were practically no estimates on which the Council could base any idea of the cost to the ratepayers. They said—
    "We have had before us certain estimates of working costs and the probable growth of demand for electricity, but the figures are at present only of a provisional character, and we are advised that the publication of any estimates at the present stage might prejudice the Council's case before a Committee of Parliament. We are consequently placed in a position of difficulty, because while we feel that the Council ought to have before it some means of judging as to the financial prospects of the scheme, we are unable for the reasons stated to submit any figures to the Council."
    Even so late as December last the committee were unable to submit any figures of importance to the Council, and he had reason to believe they were in no better position at the present time. Further, there was no proof that the Council were in a position to ensure successful competition. They said—
    "We cannot at present say whether the Council could supply at such low prices as would enable it to successfully compete for business with the large power and electric companies who possess powers of supply in bulk throughout a large part of the proposed area. This is, after all, the crucial question, because, as already pointed out, it does not appear that
    942
    the Council will possess any monopoly, but will be mainly dependent for business, so far as we can see, upon its ability to sell at a price which would induce existing undertakers to take a supply from it."
    A very good proof, if one were needed, that this business was entirely speculative in its character. A little later on the committee endeavoured to give some good advice to the County Council. They said—
    "The position which the Council will occupy in this matter has engaged our serious attention, and we cannot help thinking that the Council ought, before embarking capital in such an enterprise to have some further security than it will apparently possess. We are not prepared at the moment to say what the nature of the security should be, but it would appear to lie in the direction of the Council making suitable and permanent arrangements with the existing undertakers."
    That excellent advice, however, was not followed, and the committee finally said—
    "In conclusion, and looking to all the circumstances, we are impressed with the fact that financial risks are inseparable from an enterprise of this kind, covering so large an area, and that if such risks mature, the burden will fall entirely on the ratepayers of London."
    That conclusion was backed up in even stronger language by Lord Welby, who seemed to have an indifferent opinion of the financial caution of a great many members of the council. Lord Welby said—
    "The policy by which the Council passed scheme after scheme was a strange one. In one year, the Council passed a scheme involving huge expenditure, put it aside, forgot all about it, and looked upon it as if the thing were done. The next year, fresh schemes were produced, and the process repeated. In view of the change of Government, London County Council Bills promoted by the Council would have a better chance of passing, and fresh expenditure would he involved."
    And in conclusion he said—
    "They might expect a falling revenue in the next few years, and there was no doubt that, if they acceded to those proposals, the Bill would have to be paid by the ratepayers. A very long and a very heavy bill it would be."
    What he (Mr. Smith) had said would, he thought, at any rate sufficiently prove that though in accordance with the custom of this House it might under certain circumstances be advisable to allow this Bill to be read a second time, it certainly was not reasonable to suggest that this was the only perfect Bill before the House, and that it alone ought to be read a second time when other schemes were not to be discussed. In the next place, he suggested that this

    943
    was not a kind of business suitable for a municipal authority to embark upon. It was a business of a highly speculative character; nobody knew whether even in the hands of a company it would be successful, and it was not right that the London County Council should incur in behalf of the ratepayers such a heavy liability. To push a business of this description required all the qualities necessary for a great commercial undertaking, and he much doubted whether those qualities could be properly possessed by any municipal authority. So far, the London County Council had given no evidence of possesssing such qualities. If they were to judge from what had already occurred, the loss upon this undertaking would prove to be as great as that upon other undertakings which they had gone into. He begged to move the Motion standing in his name.
    MR. BERTRAMin seconding the Motion said that he desired to associate himself with the hon. Member for the Strand Division in this matter. His reason was that there were on the Order Paper three Bills dealing with the supply of electricity in bulk, and he understood that thirty Members of this House, of whom fifteen were members of the County Council, were pledged to do their best to reject two of the schemes, and to send only the Bill of the County Council to a Committee. Speaking as a ratepayer of London, he desired that London should not lose for all time the opportunity of competition. Therefore he thought a Committee upstairs should have the various schemes submitted to them, and should select the best scheme upon its merits, thereby enabling the public to secure the best, the most efficient, and the cheapest service. It was said that the present Bill was conceived in a spirit of opposition to monopoly; but a monopoly did not cease to be a monopoly because it was in the hands either of the State or of a powerful local authority. For the House at this stage to make a selection between these Bills would be tantamount to saying that, so long as this Parliament continued, no enterprising body of people need come to the House for Parliamentary powers within the area of the county of London, and that the whole future was to be
    944
    committed to the London County Council. The Committee to whom this Bill would be sent would have their hands tied. It was only when a Committee went into the details of competing schemes that they could judge them in the interests of the public. He had always felt that private enterprise and the power of personal choice should be jealously guarded, and he sincerely deplored the tendency to put private activity on one side and substitute for it public activity and the control of a majority vote. If the London County Council had its way London would only have one source of supply, and that would be the municipal source, and so competition would be cut off. The primary and the most valuable function of a municipal body was policing or regulation, and to that it should be restricted as far as possible. If they were to load the municipality with new duties, especially duties that more properly belonged to private enterprise, the regulating function of the municipal body would more and more be forced into the background. In 1903 Lord Camperdown obtained in another place a significant return of the number of Bills promoted by the London County Council, the fate they had met with, and the number of private Bills which the Council had opposed. From that return it appeared that from 1889 to 1902 the Council had spent £185,000 in the promotion of 154 private Bills, of which no fewer than eighty-seven had failed. Was the London County Council apprehensive of a similar fate for this Bill if it were sent with a competing Bill to a Committee upstairs? At any rate, believing as he did that free and open competition was to the best interests of the people of London, consumers of electricity and ratepayers, he desired to see the three Bills sent upstairs to be judged solely on their merits.
    Amendment proposed—
    "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.' "—(Mr. Frederick Smith.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. WOODsaid he was pleased to acknowledge the handsome confession which had been made by the seconder of the Amendment. The hon.

    945
    Member for Hitchin had confessed that he knew nothing about either the Bill or the companies, but if he had spent a few hours reading the proceedings in Committee of this or the other House he would have discovered some reasons why the people of London objected to the Administrative County of London Bill. It was a mistake to suppose that the objection to that Bill came only from the municipal authorities of London. It was felt just as strongly by private companies which were supplying electricity in London; and what the County Council desired to get rid of in opposing that Bill was not private enterprise, but private monopoly. The hon. Member for the Strand had appealed to those who voted in favour of the Administrative Bill last session to remain consistent, and to vote against the County Council Bill. He wished to point out that the position was entirely different this year. The Administrative Bill had passed through the ordeal of a Committee, and the alarm which it had awakened not only in the minds of borough councils but also among the private companies had steadily increased. The position was different in another respect, because this year they had a municipal alternative, and a choice was placed before this House. It was not necessary for him to dwell upon what had now become common ground in regard to the advantages of production upon a large scale for a very large area. It was obvious that there would be economy in machinery, plant, labour, and supervision, and in both schemes the generating station was near the river so that they could obtain sea-borne coal and an adequate supply of water for condensing purposes. What he had to show was why it was desirable that the supply of electricity in bulk should be entrusted to the central municipal authority for London and not to private enterprise. The policy adopted hitherto by Parliament in these matters had been a municipal policy. Whenever a borough council had in the past applied for an Order it had been granted, and when a company had applied for an Order power had always been given to the local authority to purchase the undertaking at the end of a fixed period. He admitted that confusion had arisen in some cases in regard to purchase, and he believed that some of the companies had been placed in a very awkward position and did not know how to develop their concerns. He believed that both public
    946
    authorities and companies would be quite willing to come to Parliament to settle this question at no distant date. The principle of purchase had not been applied to most of the bulk companies. The hon. Member for the Strand had spoken as if this question had no history or past, and he implied that it had jumped into their brains in November last in hostility to the Bill of the Administrative Company. In 1898 the London County Council summoned a conference of local London authorities and they carried two resolutions, one being to the effect that it was desirable that the principle of purchase should be applied to bulk companies, and the second resolution was in the following terms—
    "That whilst preserving intact the rights of local authorities with regard to electric lighting and energy, in the opinion of this conference it is desirable that the London County Council should be in a position to undertake, if it so determined, or was so requested by the local authority, the supply of electrical energy in bulk for the convenience of any district so desiring to be supplied providing the Council does not become competitive with the local authority."
    Upon that resolution this Bill was framed. Nothing was done up to. the year 1901, when those two resolutions were reaffirmed by another conference, and a third resolution was adopted asking the London County Council to draft a Bill embodying the two previously passed resolutions. Such a Bill was introduced, but in 1903 the Board of Trade communicated its opinion upon this question to the London County Council, pointing out that this was a matter which should not be dealt with in a private Bill and that it ought to be dealt with by the Board of Trade itself in a public Bill. Consequently a Bill was prepared and introduced in 1904 and it passed through the House of Lords, but it was withdrawn before it reached the Second Reading in the House of Commons. In 1905 the Board of Trade again introduced a Bill dealing with this question. He did not say that that measure was an adequate solution of the question, but it was at any rate a step towards a solution, and so long as the Government was dealing with the matter it was impossible for the London County Council to take any steps. Therefore, it was very unjust to taunt the London County Council with being late in taking action in this matter because their hands had practically been tied. In

    947
    the year 1905 eight Bills for the supply of electrical energy by private companies were brought before the House, and even then the Board of Trade did not press forward their Bill. He thought the opposition expressed in 1905 by two conferences of the local authorities of London to the Administrative Company's Bill was an opposition that was amply justified. He had no intention of going into the details of the Bill, but he wished to point out the only alternative to this measure. The spirit of the Administrative Bill had been well expressed in the phrase of Mr. Merz, the able witness for the company, referring to the existing authorised distribution, "They must come in or go under." The effect of the evidence went to show that the company's Bill did not mean so much cheapness to the consumer as a monopoly. The user of electricity was not safeguarded. The promoters of the Administrative Bill asserted that the Bill if passed would give to the industries of London the right to a supply of electricity for power purposes at rates cheaper than obtained in any other city in the world, but this and other statements put forward by them were not supported by the evidence. He could not find that it was proposed to give any valuable right to the individual consumer to demand cheap electrical power from the company. The London County Council dealt with the question of protecting the interests of the consumer in a much more effective manner. It was sought to give the Board of Trade power to revise prices at certain reasonable intervals on the application of the County Council. The administrative company practically sought power to enter into competition with the existing undertakers in regard to the supply of power. They took rights which would amount to coercive rights against the existing undertakers. When the borough council or company had been deprived of the power of selling electricity for motive purposes they would have to raise their prices for light, and the condition of the users of light would be worse than ever. What was the interest which it was sought to safeguard by opposing the administrative company and introducing a separate Bill? There was first of all the interest of the borough councils, amounting to over £4,500,000. Having sanctioned the loans was not that an interest which Parliament were bound to consider? Then the companies were acting under the sanction of
    948
    Parliament, and were entitled to be protected from a great dominating monopoly. They had £11,500,000 of capita in the supply of electricity. He knew that in some quarters it was believed that a company could do anything more cheaply than a borough council, but the record of the borough councils did not bear out that claim. Seven borough councils were supplying at average prices between 2⁓d. and 3¼d, and not a single company at equally cheap rates. The case of Marylebone only proved his argument. Marylebone allowed a company to grow up and then bought it out, paying about £1,200,000 for the concern. The same kind of thing happened at Leeds, the cost to the corporation being nearly double the capital which the company had expended. They wished to avoid that error in London. They had been asked whether the supply of electricity in bulk was something which should be monopolised. It certainly possessed the characteristics of undertakings which ought to be monopolised. He thought the most convinced individualist would be ready to admit that there were businesses which in their very nature tended to become monopolies and which could supply most economically as monopolies. He might instance the water supply, the postal service, and the telephone service, and he certainly thought the supplying of electricity in bulk came under that category. But the holder of a monopoly ought to be a person or body which had no interest to serve except the public interest. No doubt he would be told that the competition of companies would keep down prices, but they had heard that argument before. When water companies asked for concessions it was always on the plea that if they were granted they would be able to keep down prices, but after a few years they found those companies making agreements with each other, and when the London ratepayers came to buy them out they had to buy them at the monopoly price of £50,000,000. They had not forgotten the story of the telephone amalgamation. These things were familiar history. A public authority had many advantages over a company. No promotion money had to be paid; there were no syndicates to receive a share of the profits or rather of the capital; and the money required could be raised more cheaply. In this case the London County Council had the advantage of already

    949
    having a huge business in its hands that could not be taken from it by any competition. It had its tramway supply. It was estimated that the Council would shortly be using 37,000,000 units for this purpose, and that by the year 1915 they would require for that business alone no loss than 89,000,000 units. That was nearly double what all the borough councils produced according to the last returns, and it was approximately the same figure as that which was reached by the whole of the companies. So that it would be seen that in this matter the London County Council started with an enormous advantage. These tramways were running from early morning till late at night. He would urge one thing as showing how the ratepayer was protected, and what great prospects there were in the County Council scheme. The rate of increase in the supply of electricity under not very encouraging circumstances during the past five years had been most remarkable. It had trebled since 1900. In 1900 it was 51,000,000 units, and in 1905 it was 156,000,000 units. He had no doubt that the lower price of a large scale production would make the increase greater than otherwise it would be. They believed they would be able to maintain that great rate of the last five years. If they had a large output and a good load factor, they had all the undertaking. The County Council had other advantages special to itself. It had substations already built for tramways, elements of a cheap supply and profitable and other substations must be built as they developed the tramways. The trenches which it used to convey electricity to the substations could be used for bulk and tramway purposes. In that way the necessity for breaking up the streets twice would be saved. The people of London knew what they had suffered from the too great freedom with which private companies had been allowed to break up the streets of the City, and he did not think that, unless necessity was shown, they ought to give power to break up the streets to private companies when they could place it in the hands of municipal authorities. All these advantages added together went to show that the London County Council was in a strong position. That was his answer to the hon. Member for the Strand Division, who asked whether this was a business proposal. They were in a unique position
    950
    to deal with this matter. As to the objections to the Bill, in the first place it was stated that the London County Council were going outside the County of London. That was never an objection in the case of a company, but the London County Council must not, according to their critics, go beyond the artificial line for the boundary of the administrative Council. As a matter of fact they went out not to coerce but to assist. They had to go out already. Parliament compelled them to go into the outlying districts for main drainage, although it was no advantage to the people of London but a considerable loss. When the water question was before Parliament this difficulty as to going outside was the great argument why the London County Council must not be the water authority. Then there was created the most anomalous and absurd body ever created for water supply, a body over which neither the consumer nor the ratepayer had the slightest control, which awakened not the slightest public interest, and which showed how little coherency or consistency it possessed when, after getting a Bill through Second Reading this session, it incontinently dropped it. The Traffic Commission said that it was necessary to go outside London in connection with London trams. The time had come when they must ask Parliament to recognise that the representative authority should be allowed rights given to other cities. They were given to the municipality of Glasgow in regard to telephones. When the major interest was in the great city, but it was desirable and in the interest of the outside areas that they should be united in one service, then the great city should be allowed, under proper safeguards for those outside, to go beyond those artificial and geographical boundaries which were very necessary from a local government point of view, but sometimes very inconvenient from the business point of view. This was not a coercive Bill. It was not a wrecking Bill. It would not require any existing undertakers to scrap their plant and write off their capital. The County Council did not say to an administrative company, "You must come in or go under." They took a more excellent way. They said, "We will give you. cheaper power than you can generate by extending your system, and we will leave it to you to exercise your choice as

    951
    business men to take the advantages we offer you." It was a policy of sweet reasonableness, and he hoped it would commend itself to the outside authorities as well as the inside authorities. The Committee in charge of the Bill would be prepared to consider any views that might be expressed by outside authorities. This Bill had been brought in with the approval of fourteen of the borough councils of London. They carried a Resolution asking the County Council to bring in the present Bill. [AN HON. MEMBER: Which boroughs?] He would tell the hon. Member. The Resolution carried at a Conference held in November 1905 was as follows—
    "That this Conference of Borough Councils approves of the introduction by the London County Council, of a Bill for enabling it to supply electricity in bulk, subject to the interests of the borough councils' existing undertakings being safeguarded, and the details of the measure proving to be otherwise satisfactory."
    Fourteen voted for the Resolution and six against it. The boroughs which voted in favour of it were Battersea, Bermondsey, Bethnal Green, Camberwell, Finsbury, Fulham, Hackney, Islington, Lewisham, St. Marylebone, St. Pancras, Shoreditch, Southwark and Woolwich. The six boroughs against it were Hammersmith, Hampstead, Kensington, Paddington, Wandsworth and Westminster.
    He wished to be perfectly open with the House. There was no doubt that some of the fourteen boroughs approving the Bill objected to one clause in it, and no doubt in Committee they would contest that proposal. It was important to retain this proposal in the interests of consumers of electricity. It was a proposal that after a certain number of years the County Council might go to the Board of Trade if the supply was inadequate or deficient, or excessive in cost, point out on what terms the County Council wore prepared to supply, and ask the Board of Trade to consider all the circumstances and decide whether some action should not be taken to make the authority supply in a satisfactory way. It was natural that an existing authority should object to that, but it was a power not likely to be parted with. It would be a valuable power in the hands of the Board of Trade. His last word would be about the ratepayer. There was a notion
    952
    common in some quarters that the County Council did not protect the ratepayer. If so, it was an extraordinary thing how the ratepayers for so many years had approved of that institution. He had shown that the County Council had special and unique advantages over any company in dealing with the supply of electricity in bulk. The County Council were not guilty of rashness in taking up this matter, but were merely using common prudence and foresight. The Council had been warned by past experiences which were not pleasant. London had had to buy freedom from great monopolies before now. They had not forgotten the £50,000,000 paid to the water companies, which would have been reduced by many millions had the advice of the County Council been taken and if the legislation had been passed when introduced. The water scheme had cost London £10,000,000 more than it ought to have done. The policy of the County Council now was to be in time to prevent the creation of a gigantic monopoly. The Council believed it was doing a good turn for many generations of ratepayers. He asked the House to pursue the settled policy of Parliament and not to establish a huge monopoly which would have to be bought out by some future generation of ratepayers at a great and exorbitant cost.
    MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow had devoted the greater part of his speech to the denunciation of the Administrative County Bill. He held no brief for that or any other Bill, but he did hold a brief on behalf of private enterprise against municipal monopoly. The hon. Member began by stating that the state of things had greatly changed since last session. He admitted that, and the difference to his mind constituted a most startling change of front on the part of the County Council. In the discussion last session on the Administrative County Bill, which was for forty days under the close examination of a Committee, counsel for the London County Council said that "the Council did not desire to advance their own claims to be constituted the central authority either for the production or the distribution of electricity," and the hon. Gentleman himself said in his evidence that "the whole question should be considered

    953
    comprehensively." The Council had executed an extraordinary change of front, for they now claimed to be constituted the central authority for the production of electricity, and sought to deny the House an opportunity for treating the whole matter comprehensively, by excluding from the consideration the two great measures now before the House which were variants of their own.
    To what was this extraordinary change due? Was it due to the discovery that the London County Council—a body elected without reference to the special business aptitudes of its individual members, certainly without reference to their (expert knowledge of electricity, had suddenly become possessed of all the qualifications necessary to carry on the most complicated, scientific, difficult, and from the financial point of view, doubtful enterprise of electric power supply?
    He could find no proof of that, but he could give an instance, very close at hand, which illustrated the amount of confidence that the London County Council had in itself, not with regard to a great scientific project but with regard to a simple business proposition, that of selling land for building purposes. The House was aware that a large area of land in Westminster came under the control of the London County Council in connection with the completion of the Thames Embankment. While the part necessary for the new Embankment had, quite properly, been retained by the London County Council, the whole of the adjacent property had been handed over to a private syndicate who had undertaken to pay the London County Council 4 per cent. on the value. That was a very good rental. But what he wanted to ask was this. The syndicate was a commercial syndicate formed for the purpose of making money. It was going to make a profit—probably a large profit—over and above this 4 per cent. If the London County Council were business people, why could they not do the thing themselves and make that profit for the rates? Was it not a confession of their inability to carry on a business as well as private enterprise could, that they should give up this profit, which really belonged to the ratepayers? And was it not strangely inconsistent that, after admitting their inability to equal private enterprise in a simple business like letting
    954
    building sites, they should now claim that they were qualified to embark upon a vast scheme of electric power, involving many millions of the ratepayers' money, and one of the most complicated and difficult business enterprises in the world? He was entitled to complain of the London County Council's treatment of that project which was situated in Westminster, as contrasted with this which was to be located in Battersea. He was not here to deny to Battersea the legitimate claim to electric energy in the person of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board; but he did not see that that generated a claim to have the works and the great expenditure of money, and the vast demand for labour, located within the limits of that distinguished constituency. Or had the London County Council changed front because it thought it could supply electricity cheaper than it was to be got at present? He would show that by this Bill they were entering into a trade competition, and a sort of competition that required all that peculiar kind of energy and push which was natural to private enterprises, but which could not be carried out by a municipal body. [An HON. MEMBER: Why not?] Because London County Councillors could not undertake a hard canvass for trade, or conduct the difficult negotiations which secured customers, or instruct manufacturers how to re-organise their plant and suit it to electric power. He submitted it was an entire misconception of the proper functions of London County Councillors to involve them in such services; and that such services were absolutely essential to successful competition. Or, had they changed front because they were now convinced that the supply of electric power was a matter of such great importance that it should be in the hands of some central representative body? That, he admitted was the crucial point, and he desired to deal with it at once. If this were realty a great project to supply the whole of London, and the enormous area they were taking outside of it, 387 square miles, and all its authorised distributors, and all its great commercial undertakings, railways, trams, docks, canals, waterworks, &c, with electric power on equal terms, why then, although in his opinion it would be quite outside the scope of the legitimate functions of a governing body, it would at least be logical. It would appeal to those

    955
    considerations which no doubt existed in the minds of people who had not examined what was actually proposed, and who thought that electric power was a factor of great and growing importance; that its supply ought to be controlled by a representative authority; that if so it could be secured by everyone on equal terms; that a centralised source would ensure cheaper production, and so on. But the London County Council were not attempting anything of the sort. There was no universality and no general equality of terms secured by this Bill. It was simply a competitive business they were going in for. He was aware that the Report of the London County Council Parliamentary Committee said "the scheme is based on co-operation, not competition with existing undertakings," and the hon. Member opposite had advanced the same argument. They heard of that co-operation long ago—the sort of co-operation that existed between the wolf in the night-cap and Little Red Riding Hood. The London County Council proposed to enter the market, with the ratepayers' money, or with capital got cheap on the security of the rates, to compete with, and if they possibly could, to destroy, private corporate enterprise. It was quite obvious that was the case. In the first place nearly the whole area over which they were taking powers was already occupied by other undertakings which had been endowed by this House with the same powers which they, a governing body, were seeking, in order to convert themselves into a trading body. The Report of their Finance Committee said so. He would point out that the Finance Committee of the London County Council was the only expert body that had examined this scheme, and that its Report was the charter of opposition to it. What did they say on this point?—
    "Our attention has been directed to the extent to which powers of supply in the proposed area, are already possessed and exercised by other bodies and companies. It seems that nearly the whole area is covered by local authorites or companies possessing provisional orders, and over a large part of the area bulk powers, practically identical to those proposed to be sought by the Council, have been granted by Parliament to certain power and electric companies."
    Within that area there were three borough councils and six great companies that now had statutory powers to supply electricity in bulk; and of the sixteen
    956
    borough councils that had statutory powers to distribute electricity, nine were now in a position to take it in bulk from these existing companies. Could there be a clearer proof that their object was trade competition with those companies, competition by means of the ratepayers' money with private enterprise, which a vast number of ratepayers had invested their money in? But there was another proof. While they were glad to have the aid of the belief or impression that they were going to supply all the power that London required and could not now obtain, their Bill was only permissive. Clause 7 read—"The Council may supply to such bodies and persons, etc." They did not have to. Was it any wonder that their Finance Committee, groping about for some wild scheme, found it in this permissive provision, and in their Report said —
    "There will be no power for any authorised distributor or other person to demand a supply, and consequently no obligation on the Council to give it. The optional nature of the powers to be sought, if that option is maintained, may be held to lessen to a certain extent the financial risks which attend the undertaking."
    But their Finance Committee found an excuse in what, from the point of view of the public interest, was the weakest point in their Bill. They were not undertaking a great universal supply of the requirements of London on equal terms to all. They were simply grasping, by the rights they were trying to obtain from this House, and by the use of the ratepayers' money, at a position which would enable them to throttle private enterprise. It was quite true, as the hon. Member had said, they could obtain their capital cheaply; but on the security of the rates. Were the ratepayers secured? The Report of their Finance Committee said—
    "Whatever conclusions may hereafter be arrived at as to the probable ultimate financial results of such an undertaking as the Council may obtain power to establish, we are of opinion that the Council must face the probability that, during the early years, the undertaking will show a deficiency which will have to be made good out of the rates."
    The whole policy of this Bill was a political policy. The London County Council hoped to obtain support for it from the other sections of that big majority and would no doubt offer each a political quid pro quo at the proper time. They had a pretty clear indication of its true basis when the hon. Member opposite

    957
    said he was surprised to hear the speech of the seconder of this Motion to reject the Bill from that part of the House. That simply meant that the London County Council was a political body. Their policy was to turn the London County Council into a trading, not a governing body. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had always been a brave and consistent champion of that policy in this House. The present Government had made that policy its own by appointing the right hon. Gentleman to be the head of the one Department which had to do with and could control those extravagant municipal tendencies. It was well that the ratepayers of London should understand once for all the position of the Government in this matter, and the enormous expenditure, without any security for adequate return, which was going to be cast upon their already overburdened shoulders.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,)said the time had arrived when he ought to state on behalf of the Board of Trade what course they intended to take in regard to this Bill. The Government proposed to support the Second Reading of this Bill and, if that was carried, to move that it be referred to a hybrid Committee with a locus Standi to all those who had petitioned against the Bill, including all the private enterprises which had been referred to. They proposed to instruct the Committee to consider, with special reference to this Bill, the best means of providing for a supply of electric energy in bulk and for power and motive purposes, and to report thereon. That instruction would give very full powers to the Committee to consider all the points that had been raised.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: Will you send the other two Bills to the same Committee?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the hon. Member had been fighting for the Company's Bills, but he did not think the promoters of those Bills really desired them to be sent upstairs to a Committee. All they wanted was a locus standi, and that the Government proposed to give them. The whole question would be
    958
    considered by the Committee. That was the course suggested by the London County Council last year. They thought the question of the supply of electricity in bulk to London was a matter of such magnitude that it ought to be considered by a Committee of the House. It was now proposed that that consideration should be given on this particular Bill, and it was a course not inconsistent with that taken by the Board of Trade last year. Last year when there was only one Bill before the House, the Administrative County Bill, it was agreed on all hands that the question of the supply of electricity in bulk for all purposes was of the utmost importance to the greatest manufacturing city in the world—a city of small manufacturers. And it was also agreed that this was particularly a case for a scheme for the provision of electricity in bulk by some great central body. The London County Council had no scheme of their own, and the Board of Trade adopted the view that, as the matter was urgent, the only Bill before the House should be sent up to a Committee. This year the circumstances were different. They had a body representing the ratepayers of a great city bringing forward a scheme after mature consideration, and he thought when they came to consider competing schemes the municipality should have the first consideration. Their scheme ought to be considered in the first instance. He did not think that was disputed. But the Government did not ask the House to neglect the other schemes. A locus standi would be given to the promoters of the other schemes, and if the Committee came to the conclusion that the considerations urged against this Bill were substantiated in the main they could either reject the Bill or make a special Report as to what, in their opinion, would be the best method of dealing with this great and urgent problem in London.
    MR. BURDETT-COUTTSasked whether this Committee would have before them the Finance Committee of the London County Council or any Member of it?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the Committee would have power to call for persons and Papers, and could call up the gentlemen who prepared that Report if they desired to do so, and

    959
    they could call upon the exceedingly able gentlemen who promoted the scheme of last year to scrutinise the document referred to by the hon. Member for Westminster.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: What is the objection to sending all these Bills to this Committee?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid there was a very substantial objection to that. He thought that, in a case of this sort, priority ought to be given to the scheme of the ratepayers. That as really his main reason, but he did not want to enter into that argument, because he did not wish to prejudice the consideration of the matter before the Committee. He thought the hon. Gentleman would be well advised not to press that point even in the interests of his own side.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: You do not know which my side is.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that no matter which side it was the hon. Gentleman would be well advised to accept the proposal put forward by the Government for dealing with this great and difficult problem. He understood the County Council were perfectly prepared to agree to this course. He understood, also, that that was the view taken by the Administrative County Company, and, after all, it saved expense. He must say, however, that the Government did not accept the view that had been urged that municipalities were not capable of going into enterprises of this character. The experience of London did not bear out that contention. He found that sixteen borough councils sold their electricity at 3¼d. per unit, and that the eight companies sold at 4d. Not merely did the borough councils sell more cheaply, but he found that there was not a single borough council that did not, in addition, make a profit ranging from £1,000 to £20,000 a year. So that all the talk about the squandering of the ratepayers' money was actually beside the mark. It was quite unjustifiable. The London County Council, and the borough councils more especially, had been running these electric enterprises with great success. The hon. Member who spoke last seemed very much afraid that the County Council
    960
    might, in some way, crush out the enterprises of the borough councils. He found that the money that had been advanced to the borough councils for the purposes of these undertakings had been advanced to the extent of something like £4,500,000 by the County Council, so that the wolf had a vested interest in keeping Red Riding Hood alive.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: Do they supply in bulk?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he knew that they supplied in bulk and at a very much cheaper rate than the companies; and the London County Council was prepared to supplement the cheaper supply of the borough councils. If hon. Members opposite thought this was a fair proposal he would put it on the Paper, and he trusted the House would give them now the Second Reading of the County Council Bill
    SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERsaid he was in a position to state, on behalf of the promoters of the Administrative County Bill, that they acquiesced in the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. He understood that every opportunity would be given to the Select Committee fully to investigate the whole question of electrical bulk supply, so that as a result of their deliberations some practical and economic scheme might be evolved. It was not his province to enter into the merits of the Administrative County Bill, nor into the merits of the London County Council Bill, nor to make any remarks on the speech made by his hon. friend the Member for Strand Division, nor on the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow in advocacy of the London County Council Bill. It was only natural that the County Council, representing the ratepayers, should be given a preference in having their scheme thoroughly discussed and examined. If as a result of that examination it was found that the County Council could prudently, economically, and effectively give a bulk supply over this large area, then the situation, of course, was a different one from that of last year, when the Administrative County Bill was the only proposal before Parliament. The London County Council had undoubtedly the very great advantage of

    961
    having the Administrative County Bill of last year to work upon, and also of having the expert assistance of gentlemen most competent to deal with this highly complicated question. The question was an extremely urgent one. It affected the greatest manufacturing area in the Kingdom. Manufacturers and railway companies had all been asking for this supply for a long time, and he only hoped that some conclusion would he arrived at, as the result of the examination by the Committee, which would meet with the general assent; and agreement of those who desired to see a bulk supply furnished to this great area on an effective and economic scale.
    EARL PERCYsuggested that after the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, containing a proposal not, he thought, unreasonable, his hon. friend might agree to withdraw his Motion. He said that with the proviso that in withdrawing this Motion they on that side of the House were not to be taken as in any sense pledging themselves to the principle of the supply of electricity in London by a public authority as opposed to private enterprise. There were many of them who were not prepared to give a vote in that sense. It would be foolish to contend, in view of the Acts of Parliament that had been passed, that the supply of electricity was not, under certain circumstances, a legitimate object of municipal enterprise. But it was none the less municipal trading of a highly speculative character, involving very large expenditure, which a private company was justified in undertaking, but which a public body ought not to undertake without clearly ascertaining that the majority of the ratepayers was in its favour. He did not know that there was any indication whatever that the majority of the ratepayers of London was in favour of the supply of electricity by the London County Council. It was true there was a majority on the Council itself, but the Council was a decadent body, which came to an end next year. The scheme had been condemned by the Finance Committee of that Council.
    MR. WOODsaid he must be allowed to state that the scheme had never been so condemned by the Finance Committee.
    EARL PERCYsaid he ought not, perhaps, to say condemned, but the Finance Committee reported that there were no financial estimates which would justify it in expressing any opinion at all. The President of the Local Government Board had said that he regarded it as one of the great virtues of the Bill that it was so indefinite that it offered no target for attack. It was opposed also by a large majority of the borough councils [MINISTERIAL cries of "No"] —a majority then [renewed MINISTERIAL cries of "No"]; at all events there was no such consensus of opinion on the part of the borough councils as would justify them in saying that the ratepayers were in favour of the scheme, and the borough councils represented ratepayers who had already embarked large sums of money in local schemes which would be seriously hit by the project of the London County Council. In their opinion there were very grave objections to the municipalisation of a supply the cheapness and efficiency of which would depend on costly experiments and the constant discarding of old methods in favour of new, with the possible risk of eventual loss. And it must be remembered also that not only would there be a conflict of interests between rate-payers and consumers, but also between the ratepayers and their employees, for the London County Council was steadily forming a vast body of workmen who were always under the temptation to use their suffrages for the purpose of advancing their pecuniary interests. That was not a state of things likely to promote economy in business management or purity of local government.
    MR. ROWLANDSsaid he wished to express his satisfaction at the policy adopted by the President of the Board of Trade. He had no objection to the London County Council having complete control over the electric supply over a wide area, but hoped that when the Bill went to a Committee upstairs the interests of the outlying districts affected which had themselves invested capital in electrical undertakings would be especially considered and safe-guarded. At present, he thought, the interests of the municipal authorities outside London were not thoroughly safe-guarded.
    SIR SAMUEL SCOTTsaid that the Marylebone Borough Council had passed a resolution to the effect that the whole question and the supply of electricity in bulk should be dealt with by a Royal Commission. The proposal made by the President of the Board of Trade amounted to much the same thing, and he trusted that the whole subject would be most carefully considered.
    MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid he merely wanted to ask one necessary question. The right hon Gentleman a few minutes before had implied that the promoters of the Additional Electrical Power Supply (London) Bill had agreed to the proposal of the reference to a Hybrid Committee, but that was not so.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I did not say that.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid his impression was that the promoters of that Bill desired to have their rights saved and not to enter into any particular bargain.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think I said so, but I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says.
    MR. MORTONsaid he only desired to detain the House for a few minutes while he said a few words on the connection of the City of London with this measure and the position of the Corporation. He wished to thank the President of the Board of Trade for his statement, in the first place because it was the right statement to make, and in the second place because he had adopted the proposal of the Corporation of the City of London. It was indeed identical with a proposal which he himself handed to the clerk at the Table some time ago, and further, the policy now being pursued was identical in terms with the evidence that he had himself given on behalf of the Corporation of the City of London last summer. He only wanted to mention on the part of the Corporation that they wished to have the fullest inquiry. The proper course was to send the Bills to a Select Committee or some body of that kind. In his evidence he had suggested either a Select Committee or a Royal Commission, but he thought the Corporation had been treated with scant courtesy
    964
    by the Government. The Corporation had by letter asked that all the Bills should be sent to a Royal Commission for the fullest possible inquiry into the whole subject of the supply of electricity in bulk, but up to the end of last week they had received no answer. He himself had put a Question down on the Paper and had at the request of the Government postponed it, but they had in the interval answered a similar Question put by another Member. He was not sure that that was the proper or courteous way of conducting the business of the House of Commons. He thought it would be much better to send all these schemes upstairs, so that a Committee might consider what was best for the whole of London. In the City they were more interested in this Question than any other part of London, because they paid one-eighth of the rates, and should in case of a loss have to pay one eighth of it. He was glad that the Government had adopted the course recommended by himself and the Corporation.
    MR. W. F. D. SMITHsaid that after what had been stated by the President of the Board of Trade he did not desire to proceed with his Motion and would withdraw it on the understanding that the whole question should be referred to a Committee upstairs.
    Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question put and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

    POST OFFICE (MONEY ORDERS) BILL.
    Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question (March 26th), "That the Bill be now road a second time."
    Question again proposed.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYthought that the House of Commons should be informed as to the contents of the Bill. The measure was supposed to be an innocuous one, but it affected the rights of the public. The Bill by reference included certain other Acts of Parliament.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the Bill simply extended the provisions of the

    965
    Money Orders Act, 1880 and 1883, to all British protectorates and to certain foreign countries.
    Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed for tomorrow.

    WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL.
    As amended, considered.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYobjected to an Amendment carried at the instance of the Postmaster-General to extend the operation of the Act until December 31st, 1912. Since the Bill was last before the House various communications had reached him as to the effect which the Bill would have in regard to hampering the industry and the injustice it would inflict upon many who were devoting their intelligence and their capital to the development of this branch of science. As the Bill now stood it tied the hands of the public and Parliament as to wireless telegraphy till 1912. The Admiralty employed the Marconi system, but the War Office was using the Oliver Lodge-Muirhead system, but neither Department let the other know what they were doing. This was part of the bargain between the Marconi system and the Admiralty. The Lodge-Muirhead group alleged that Marconi had infringed their patents and were endeavouring to serve a writ upon the Admiralty. But the Admiralty refused service of the writ, referred the matter to the Treasury solicitors, and meanwhile this Bill was being rushed through the House to put the Lodge claim out of court. If the Bill were carried it would mean that the Lodge - Muirhead system would have no appeal in regard to their rights, and a monopoly would be established for the Marconi system, which was that of a foreigner. The Lodge-Muirhead system had proved a great advantage in India during the visit of their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales. It had also proved useful in other directions, including the conveyance of news from the Andaman Islands. He had recently received a Blue-book issued by the Government showing that during the past year the Lodge system as worked in India, had proved profitable both to the public and to the company concerned, and yet the
    966
    Imperial Government was going to prevent the Lodge undertaking all chance of operating on the south coast of England, which was the most valuable part of the United Kingdom both commercially and scientifically for wireless telegraphy. He need not say that he had no sort of interest direct or indirect in any wireless or other telegraph company. He protested against tying the hands of Parliament in matters of the highest national importance. He moved to limit the operation of the Bill to December 31st, 1908.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDseconded the Amendment, and said he objected to the public's being deprived of the right of experiment and improvement in the system of wireless telegraphy. It would be impossible for any improvements to be carried out in scientific research if investigators were obliged to get licences before they could undertake the work. The restrictions were imposed at first for a limited period, but now they were to be imposed in perpetuity.
    Amendment proposed to the Bill—
    "In page 1, line 6, to leave out the word 'twelve,' and insert the word 'eight."—(Mr. Claude Hay.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'twelve' stand part of the Bill."
    MR. J. D. WHITEpointed out that the Act which gave the Post. Office the monopoly of commercial telegraphy gave it incidentally the monopoly of wireless telegraphy. This was evident from the terms of the judgment in the telephone case, which laid down the doctrine that the telegraph monopoly extended to the telephone as well. By the Act of 1904 a much wider monopoly had been created, and the monopoly applied not only throughout the country, but to the territorial waters and the high seas. That was a very important step to take. The inventor was placed at the mercy of a monopolist Department, and experiment and progress in invention were checked. If it had been found that messages from one place interfered with messages from another place in such a way that wireless telegrams could not be worked, then he should be ready to assent to this monopoly being given to the Post Office, but

    967
    that was not the case. As regarded the application of the measure outside the United Kingdom, he objected that the measure interfered with British ships carrying the apparatus for wireless telegraphy, while foreign ships remained perfectly free to do so. It seemed to him that the great reason for this Bill was that of national defence, but the necessary powers might well be secured by a provision which would enable the Privy Council in times of special danger to issue regulations. This was an occasion for obtaining some agreement with other nations as to the use of wireless telegraphy on the high seas or elsewhere, but it seemed undesirable to have a restriction, which, as regards the high seas, would operate only with regard to British ships. The question was now raised as to how long this Act should be continued. Originally the Act was designed to last only for two years. It was now proposed, without any very adequate discussion of the great principles involved, that this extensive monopoly should be extended for another six years. He was sure every hon. Member recognised the many difficulties with which the Post Office was confronted, and he for one would never do anything to embarrass that Department. He wished, however, to put before the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General the desirability of considering a reduction of the proposed extension to some shorter period than six years.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the object of the Bill was to prevent a monopoly springing up, and to give the Post Office and the Admiralty control over wireless telegraphy. At the time the original Bill was proposed there was only one Wireless Telegraph Company in existence — at all events, only one in active operation—and one of the chief objects of the original Bill was to prevent a monopoly of that sort which could not be prevented otherwise. If it were found in the next two or three years that further legislation was required in order to prevent a monopoly he could assure the House that so far as he was concerned such a Bill would be introduced, but the time had not yet come which necessitated any material alteration in the Act of two years ago. Against that Act there had bean no complaint from any
    968
    quarter so far as he had heard. It only gave power to the Postmaster-General to license various companies which applied for licences. It was not possible to have stations close to one another, and so far as invention had at present gone it was necessary to have stations so as not to interfere one with another. He could assure the House that the object of this Bill was certainly not to give any company a monopoly. All applications had been considered, and it was a mistake to suppose there was anything in the way of private inventors or companies wanting to carry out experiments. The fullest possible opportunity was given to all such persons. It was given under licence because from the Post Office point of view it was in the general interest of the public that there should be some control in regard to this matter. The Admiralty were absolutely convinced that it was essential not only that they should know where all the stations were, but that they should be able to put their hands upon them in time of emergency and at a moment's notice, and unless there were licences that information would not be available. The Post Office desired to give every facility to experiments by rival systems. They wanted to have experiments tried on these rival systems, in order that they could see which was the best. He took the same view as his predecessor, and had no desire to limit experiments, but on the contrary he desired to encourage so far as might be the various systems. He hoped under these circumstances the House would agree to the extension of this Act, on the understanding that, if the process of wireless telegraphy proceeded so rapidly owing to the discovery of inventions as to make it necessary to introduce other legislation, a Bill would be introduced either by himself or his successor before the end of six years. That moment had not yet come, and therefore it was wiser in order to prevent confusion to extend the Act as it at present existed. After all, the late Government did pass some good measures, and he thought that the Wireless Telegraphy Bill was one. In the interests of public policy he asked the House to reject the Amendment and to allow the Bill to proceed.
    LORD BALCARRESsaid the Postmaster-General had not given good reasons why the Amendment should be rejected. The Bill

    969
    contained the words "until Parliament otherwise determines," and that provision left it open to Parliament at any time to reopen the whole question, and to examine any new facts connected with wireless telegraphy that might supervene. The right hon. Gentleman had said he wished the Act to continue until 1912—that was to say, for a period three times as long as the original Act was framed to cover. The right hon. Gentleman had also said that if necessity arose in the next year or so he would be fully prepared to amend the Act. It seemed to him that that gave away the whole case. If that were so, why not accept the shorter time limit, or keep the words "until Parliament otherwise determines," which evidently was the considered policy of the Post Office at the date of the introduction of the Bill. The Amendment was passed three weeks ago without an inquiry, and no explanation was given why it was inserted. The only explanation given by the Postmaster-General was that negotiations had taken place, presumably on this particular point, and that he, in consequence, introduced these amending words. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the intention of the original Bill was to prevent a monopoly. He could not help thinking that the effect of the present scheme would be to perpetuate, if not to create, a monopoly. Under this Bill there was not a doubt in his mind that the Lodge-Muirhead system would be practically excluded from being used by the public service in this country. Litigation was pending—in fact, they had been trying to bring the matter into the courts for months past, but had been unsuccessful, owing to the blocking of the matter by the Admiralty. In his opinion, under the original Act, which it was now proposed to continue for six years more, it was practically impossible for suitable experiments to be undertaken by persons who were investigating the question of wireless telegraphy. The right hon. Gentleman had said that full opportunities would be given by the Post Office in such cases, and that there was no intention on the part of his Department to stand in the way of inventors and investigators. But against that he would simply put the practical experience of people engaged in this enterprise. He suspected that the Postmaster-General or his officials must know that at this moment experiments with wireless telegraphy were going
    970
    on in this country for which licences had not been applied for or taken out by the experimenters, who preferred to run the risk of twelve months imprisonment with or without hard labour rather than submit under the Act to special conditions and restrictions without which the Postmaster-General permitted no licence to be granted. Everybody knew the position as regarded the Post Office. One particular system had been adopted by the Department to the exclusion of all others, and the humble inventor with small means and small facilities for carrying out these experiments did not dare take his claim to the Post Office to ask for a licence, because he knew it must be submitted to a particular Department which naturally and properly enough would put on whatever restrictions, conditions, and special terms they might think fit, not only to his detriment but necessitating the publication of his professional secrets. These men had to explain their system, where there stations were, at what altitude they would be placed, and so forth, so that the Post Office could understand whether their messages could or could not be intercepted by the existing system. It was too much to ask these men to inform their opponents of all the vital facts on which their systems were based. If the Postmaster-General would revert to the phrase in the original Act "until Parliament otherwise determines" there would be no objection on the part of hon. Members who took the view he did with regard to the Act, and the objection of a large number of scientific investigators, whose claims ought to be taken into account, would be satisfied, because they would then be certain that there was no intention on the part of the Post Office to create what appeared under the present Bill to be a monopoly in favour of one particular company.
    SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid they all knew that the Admiralty had very large contracts with the Marconi Company, and he should like to know whether the statement was true that this litigation was pending, because it was quite clear that if the Admiralty were interested in the Marconi system, and the right to give monopoly was in the Post Office, it was very possible that the Lodge-Muirhead system would not be able to carry out

    971
    the necessary experiments to complete their system, which, as they knew, had greatly advanced in India. The system appeared to be entirely a new one, and the House ought to take care that these licences were not worked in such a way as in anywise to favour the particular company with which the Government had entered into contracts. When the original Bill passed through the House it was considered essential that it should be passed in a tentative form and only for two years. The reasons which led to that conclusion still applied. This science was in its infancy, and he thought nothing would be lost by simply prolonging the Bill for another period of two years. A good deal might be done in the meantime. The litigation that had arisen would probably be finished, the merits of the different systems would be known, and there would be no suspicion of partiality towards those with whom the Government had entered into a contract. He suggested in fairness to all parties the Amendment should be accepted.
    LORD R. CECILexpressed the view that, wireless telegraphy being in a progressive condition and having by no means reached the stage
    of finality, it was extremely desirable that the Act should not be continued for more than two years. This legislation was alleged at any rate to belimiting the progress of an art. Take the instance given by the Postmaster-General. The right hon. Gentleman had said that there must be these licences because stations could not be put close one to another. There was no reason why that difficulty should not be overcome in the course of the next two years. The right hon. Gentleman had given his undertaking, if any fresh discoveries were made, to make proposals to the House for any necessary alterations. That was surely a most unreasonable attitude, for how could the right hon. Gentleman bind his successors in office? The right way of meeting the situation was by limiting the duration of the Act to another two years.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that he was advised that the Bill would not in any way affect the position of the companies which had been referred to and the Admiralty.
    Question put.
    The House divided: Ayes, 293; Noes, 39. (Division List No. 27.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Cooper, G. J.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Brace, William

    Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

    Adkins, W. Ryland

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Agnew, George William

    Brigg, John

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Bright, J. A.

    Cowan, W. H.

    Alden, Percy

    Brocklehurst, W. D.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Allen, A Acland (Christchurch)

    Brodie, H. C.

    Crean, Eugene

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Brooke, Stopford

    Cremer, William Randal

    Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

    Brunner, J. F. L.(Lancs., Leigh)

    Crossley, William J.

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Bryee, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen)

    Cullinan, J.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Davies, David(Montgomery Co.

    Baring, Godfrcy (Isle of Wight)

    Burke, E. Haviland -

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Barnard, E. B.

    Burnyeat, J. D. W.

    Delany, William

    Barnes, G. N.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Chas.

    Devlin, Charles Ramsay(G'lway

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Byles, William Pollard

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Cairns, Thomas

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Beale, W. P.

    Caldwell, James

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Beauchamp, E.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Dolan, Charles Joseph

    Beaumont, Hubert (Eastbourne

    Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

    Duckworth, James

    Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

    Chance, Frederick William

    Duffy, William J.

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

    Belloc, Hiliare Joseph Peter R.

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Benn, John Williams (Devonp't

    Cherry, R. R.

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

    Bertram, Julius

    Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

    Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

    Billson, Alfred

    Clough, W.

    Erskine, David C.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Coats, Sir T. Glen(Renfrew, W.)

    Essex, R. W.

    Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Boland, John

    Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras, W.

    Ferens, T. R.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    M'Crae, George

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Findlay, Alexander

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    M'Killop, W.

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Fullerton, Hugh

    M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

    Rose, Charles Day

    Gilhooly, James

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Rowlands, J.

    Ginnell, L.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Runciman, Walter

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

    Manfield, Harry (Northants)

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Glover, Thomas

    Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Grant, Corrie

    Marnham, F. J.

    Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Massie, J.

    Scott, A.H. (AshtonunderLyne

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Meagher, Michael

    Sears, J. E.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Meehan, Patrick A.

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Gulland, John W.

    Menzies, Walter

    Seely, Major J. B.

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Mond, A.

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

    Montagu, E. S.

    Sheehy, David

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

    Montgomery, H. H.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Mooney, J. J.

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

    Morrell, Philip

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Harmsworth, R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Murphy, John

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Spicer, Albert

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Nicholls, George

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

    Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Norman, Henry

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Hazleton, Richard

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Sullivan, Donal

    Henry, Charles S.

    O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

    Summerball, T.

    Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    O'Dowd, John

    Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    O'Grady, J.

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Thompson, J. W.H.(Somerset, E.

    Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

    Toulmin, George

    Horniman, Emslie John

    O'Malley, William

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Hutton, Alfred Eddison

    O'Mara, James

    Ure, Alexander

    Hyde, Clarendon

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Verney, F. W.

    Idris, T. H. W.

    O'Shee, James John

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Paul, Herbert

    Wallace, Robert

    Jenkins, J.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

    Walters, John Tudor

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

    Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Phillipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke

    Ward, W. Dudley(Southampt'n

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Joyce, Michael

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Wason, John Cathcart Orkney)

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Pollard, Dr.

    Watt, H. Anderson

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.

    Whitbread, Howard

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.)

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

    Lambert, George

    Radford, G. H.

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Lamont, Norman

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Law, Hugh Alexander

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Reddy, M.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Williamson, A. (Elginand Nairn

    Levy, Maurice

    Rees, J. D.

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

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Renton, Major Leslie

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Lough, Thomas

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monmth

    Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh N.)

    Lundon, W.

    Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

    Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

    Lupton, Arnold

    Richardson, A.

    Winfrey, R.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    George Whiteley and Mr. J.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    A. Pease.

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Robinson, S.

    974

    975

    NOES.

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

    Craig, Captain James(Down, E

    Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. H. O.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Fell, Arthur

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Beach, Hn Michael Hugh Hicks

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancash.)

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Forster, Henry William

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Bull, Sir William James

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

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

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Younger, George

    Cave, George

    Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh

    Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor CW.

    Hills, J. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Coates, E. Feetham (Lowisham

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Claude Hay and Lord

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

    Liddell, Henry

    Robert Cecil.

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Marks, Harry Hananel (Kent)

    Courthope, G. Lloyd

    Pease, H Pike (Darlington)

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

    Bill to be read a third time tomorrow.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND No. 1 BILL.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now road a third time."
    MR. MORTONsaid that if the Government had kept their promise of giving him an opportunity on the Report stage of the Vote on Account to raise his questions he would not have needed to trouble the House to-night; but this was the last opportunity he would have. There were a number of matters he should like to call attention to, especially with regard to the Scottish Office and the English Local Government Board, but these he would leave to another occasion. What he would draw attention to to-night was the neglect of General Botha's claim for compensation for the destruction of his property during the war in South Africa. General Botha assessed his claim at £15,000. It was reduced on the Government assessment to £7,000, and then General Botha was offered a cheque of £800 in full settlement of his claim. He declined to sign a receipt to that effect. Would the Under-Secretary for the Colonies say whether he proposed to take any action in the matter? A deliberate and solemn promise was made by the late Government that property burnt and otherwise destroyed should be paid for out of the fund
    976
    of £3,000,000 which was provided for that purpose, and the treatment of General Botha in expecting him to give a receipt in full settlement of his claim under the conditions he had mentioned was about the meanest transaction he had ever heard or read of. He understood on the best authority that General Botha's property and that of the other generals ought never to have been destroyed. Especially was there no occasion whatever for burning General Botha's property, and the act was pure wanton wickedness on the part of the Government of the day. He was told on good authority that every officer and every soldier connected with the British Army was opposed to that wicked destruction of property, but was obliged to carry it out. He knew that when those methods-had been properly described as "methods of barbarism," the Liberals had been charged with accusing the British soldier of carrying out those methods, but he was glad to know that no Liberal ever suggested or thought that either the officers or soldiers approved of this wanton destruction of property, but that it was done by orders of the Government responsible for all this wickedness. It was done by the late Government through Lord Milner.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the subject matter of this Bill. He is going back five years.
    MR. MORTONsaid that all he wanted to know from the Government was what they were going to do with regard to the claims that must be now

    977
    before them. He understood that none of them were yet settled, and he wanted to know whether the Government recognising, as they ought to recognise, the very excellent way in which these Boer generals had behaved since the treaty settlement. Were they going to continue to treat them in the manner he had indicated? He knew his information was correct for he had it from the general. There was no occasion why the present Government should carry out the wicked work of their predecessors. The country had put them in office not to do that, but to show to all our subjects in South Africa or anywhere else that they were to be treated honestly, and that every promise that was made between us and the Boers would be carried out to the letter. If anything, let the Government show generosity to those who were once our opponents, but who had acted in the best possible spirit toward the Government and the people of this country. He hoped the Government would do what was right and proper, and ignore the evil deeds of the late Government.
    THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,)said he was very sorry that the hon. Gentleman should have encountered inconvenience in regard to this matter, and he might assure him that it was not his fault that he was not able to be present when he raised this matter on a previous occasion, and that consequently it had been kept waiting.
    MR. MORTON: I quite admit my hon. friend is not to blame.
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid before giving an Answer he wished to thank the hon. Gentleman for the courtesy and consideration he had shown in allowing this matter to stand over for so long. He thought he could answer very shortly the point he had raised this evening. There were three classes of people who had been paid money
    978
    in consideration of, or in connection with, their losses through the Boer War. There were first of all the British subjects who had suffered loss and had been indemnified to the extent, he thought, of 17s. 4d. in the £. Then there were those protected burghers who were indemnified under Lord Roberts' proclamation and who received £2,000,000 sterling amongst them, amounting, he believed, to rather more than 2s. in the £, and lastly there were the burghers under the late Boer Government who participated in the grant. It was in the last class that General Botha came. It was a mistake to assume that the grant of £3,000,000 under the Treaty of Vereeniging was intended to be compensation or repayment for war losses. It was for the purpose of assisting people to their homes and supplying others with homes. There were, he supposed, 40,000 applicants, and crediting every man with £25 a piece, that roughly speaking exhausted almost half the £3,000,000. After that the remaining sum was distributed among the claimants, having some regard to the proportion of their losses. Under this system o. allotment General Botha's share amounted to £800. It would be clear to the House that had he received merely one 40,000th part of £3,000,000 he would have received a very much smaller sum than £800. It was contended by the Boers themselves that persons who were in the Boer Republic and were very well-to-do ought not to participate in the fund which was intended generally for the relief of the poorest among the burghers, and those who had really nothing left after the war Therefore he could not admit that under the principle of distribution which was enforced by the late Government any injustice was done to General Botha. It was quite true that General Botha was not prepared to sign a receipt in full for the £800, but he thought that General Botha adopted that course not because he wished to draw any attention to any injustice to himself but because he wished to protest against the inadequacy of the general provision. He did not understand

    979
    that his hon. friend had any authorisation from General Botha to make a special claim on his behalf. He felt quite sure that his hon. friend had taken it up very properly as a matter requiring Parliamentary consideration.
    MR. MORTON: And as a matter of principle.
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid he was sure also that as a matter of principle General Botha, would be the last person to avail himself of the influence of a Member of Parliament in order to obtain for himself special terms which other Boers did not get. Although he did not deny that the £3,000,000 sterling fell far short of the sum which would be required to balance even the material loss of the war, yet he was not at all prepared to say that they as a Government were prepared at this stage to put forward any proposal for adding to the very large sum already paid. A Committee had just reported on the compensation claims, and he hoped shortly to be able to lay the report on the Table of the House. The House would then no doubt be able to consider the question in detail. All he could say with regard to General Botha's claim was that he had been treated strictly according to the principle of allotment, and that on that principle he had received a very much larger sum than the great majority of the Burghers who fought with him so gallantly.

    ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,)said he had to move the Second Reading of this Bill and to explain briefly the nature of the alterations that had been made this year. First and foremost they had
    980
    taken the opportunity, with the full consent of the Army Council and of the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for War, who had been always of this opinion, to abolish flogging, root and branch, in the British Army. It had remained a question as to whether it should be retained in the military prisons. The view taken by the Government was this. It was quite true that there might be brutal offences against warders committed by prisoners, and it was possible that physical force and physical punishment might be required, but they held that in those military prisons into which men were sent for offences which were not the offences of the ordinary civil law it was inexpedient that this power should exist. If a man committed a brutal assault on a warder, it was an assault under the common law: let him therefore be turned out of the Army and turned over to the Civil authority, who would deal with him. It was thought that this was much better for the Army than that this policy should be retained in the Military prisons. The view of the Government was that men who ought to be flogged should not be kept in the Army. Another new provision was that in the case of certain slight offences where imprisonment was to be awarded in military prisons, they had altered the title and had called it detention instead of imprisonment. It was really detention, and it looked better on the record of a soldier; if he must be slightly restrained, it was better that he should be restrained under the term of detention than of imprisonment. There were one or two minor alterations in the Bill; for instance, when a non-commissioned officer suffered a sentence under the old system by a court-martial he was reduced to the ranks. The tribunal was now given the opportunity of inflicting on him only the loss of seniority. There were several other matters of that kind which he thought were better reserved for the Committee stage, and with that explanation he presented the Bill to the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he should like to add one word to what the right hon. Gentleman had said. Last year some hon. Members took a very strong view in favour of the abolition of corporal punishment in military prisons, and he undertook to make careful inquiry. He referred the matter to the governors of military gaols, and consulted Sir Evelyn Brise on the subject. The reports he was bound to say conflicted, and he was not able to accept those views as conclusive. He thought it could be in a certain sense justified that a man should not be punished by corporal punishment for an offence for which he would not have been punished had he not been a soldier. That being so he ventured to disregard the opinion he had received, and to decide that this punishment should cease. He was glad that his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War had made this decision operative. His view was that the interest of the soldier more than ever demanded that every effort should be made for improving his social status, and increasing the consideration in which he was held. He was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman had decided now to carry out a reform of the law which he believed could have been carried out by regulation. He was also very glad that he had accepted the suggestion of altering the form of words describing the position of a soldier in a military prison. He would make a further improvement. He thought the time had come when every effort should be made to withdraw soldiers altogether from civil prisons. It was not good for the soldier.
    SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the speech of the Secretary of State for War illustrated the fact that improvements in the barbarism of the military code had always been obtained by very sharp action on the part of Members of
    982
    this House. The Act which abolished flogging in the Army in its old form was the result of a fourteen days debate virtually on this Bill in Committee, and the change that had taken place this year, prompted no doubt by the humane instinct of the right hon. Gentleman him-self, was nevertheless forced upon the military authorities by the all-night sitting last session. This Bill brought into force the whole of the military code, which was one of extreme complexity, and most unintelligible. He was certain that the present Secretary of State could not give his mind to the consideration of this code without seeing that it was necessary to revise and very largely alter it. It was impossible to do that this year. It would be most unfair to press the Secretary of State to do it, but they had every right to call his attention to the barbarous character, and the extraordinarily complex character of the Bill. Although they were not disposed to press Amendment in Committee this year, they would at least ask for the undertaking of the right hon. Gentleman to alter the Act before next year. Members had been led to make proposals, which were somewhat opposite so far as they concerned the officers to those which they had made concerning the men. In regard to the officers they had pressed for the regular forms of the Statute in regard to inquiries, but in the case of the men they had taken the opposite line and had deprecated the enormous extension of courts-martial, especially in regard to mere boy recruits, who were almost forced into technical crime against their will and could hardly be found otherwise than guilty, with the result that they were sent to prison. The facts were described by the military authorities themselves in language which was positively startling. The Reports of the Directors of Military prisons were somewhat out of date, but according to the Report of 1904, 7,750 men were sent to prison as the result of courts-martial. That was an enormous increase. It was impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to leave matters where

    983
    they were. The Report of the Director of Military Prisons for 1903, gave the Reports of the Directors for various prisons. Those Reports showed that men were discharged as worthless who would have made fine soldiers, but having committed some technical offence in the early days of their service they were driven into gaol and afterwards discharged without a character. That there should be a total of 22,000 men in the home stations driven into military prisons every year, that there should be 7,750 they men driven into gaol by courts-martial every year, that they should have officers themselves going almost beyond their duty to point out the detrimental effect which it was having upon recruiting, and that they were condemning these men for the whole of their lives beyond all redemption for committing some technical offence when mere boys, was surely a matter which if the right hon. Gentleman looked into he must see his way next year to alter. The Act was hoplessly out of date. As regarded the men, he hoped the rigidity of the courts-martial would be got rid of, but as regarded the officers, irregular inquiries in their case were to be deprecated. The Kinloch case proved the necessity for the demand that was made. He had only one other thing to say, and that was to repeat that the law was not intelligible. It required redrafting in many particulars. When the hon. Member for East Bristol said a year or two ago in a debate on this Bill that the soldier could not understand the Act, he was well within the mark. Last year the War Office pointed out that all a soldier needed to note was contained in the small hook. All he could say was it was not contained in the small book. No man enlisting in the Army, or his friends, could possibly understand the conditions of military law by reading the small book. It contained certain penalties, but there were an enormous number of things such as proceedings of courts martial which he ought to know, which were entirely outside the small book, and such was the complexity of the law, that the ordinary enlister would
    984
    find himself entirely unable to grasp its meaning at all. The whole code was unintelligible, not only to the ordinary man, but even to a lawyer.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he desired formally to move that the Bill be read this day six months. He did so because he did not think he could deal with the question otherwise. He recognised the beneficent alterations which were made in the Act this year. But this Bill, as they knew, was a coercion Bill for the Army, and suspended the constitution so far as the soldier was concerned, and his complaint was that this coercion law was not under the administration of this House. At one time there was an Attorney-General for the Army, who was responsible to this House. Although he was never a Cabinet Minister he was, ex-officio, a member of the Privy Council, and had the right absolutely to seek and obtain audience of the King in matters referring to the Army. In the year 1892 Sir Francis Jeune accepted, at the instance of the Government, the honorary post of Judge Advocate-General, and he continued in that post until his death. The office was subsequently filled by a barrister of a few years' standing, a gentleman named Boase. He thought it was a bad thing to have a coercion Act administered by a boy going about in a stuff gown seeking briefs. He was told repeatedly that fresh arrangements were to be submitted to Parliament by the late Government, but they were never submitted. Just before the prorogation of the late Government it was stated that Mr. Milvain, a member of this House, was to be appointed Judge Advocate-General under a different system. Mr. Milvain was appointed a few days after the prorogation, but he did not resign his seat until five weeks afterwards. That appointment had never been brought under Parliamentary sanction. It was not a civil, military, or legal appointment. It had emanated from the acute brain of the right hon. Gentleman the

    985
    Member for Croydon. The position carried with it £2,000 a year, and at the age of seventy the gentlemen in question was to go out with a pension. There ought to be a Minister in the office directly responsible to the House. He asked the Secretary of State for War not to make himself the universal legatee of Arnold-Forsterism. The right hon. Gentleman was not bound by this contract. How was it possible for the late Secretary of War of his own sweet will to manipulate a post of so great importance? He hoped the Attorney-General would be grateful to him for having introduced this subject to-night, and he only hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would repeat the speech he made on this subject in the last Parliament. In view of the immense importance of the duties of the office he would ask his right hon. friend if necessary to hand Mr. Milvain £20,000 down, and have a proper person to administer justice in the Army. If there was to be a drastic code let it be administered by a gentleman who was responsible to this House.
    MR. PAULseconded the Amendment. He had not a word to say against the competence of Mr. Milvain. On the contrary, he believed him to be a perfectly competent man; but had the executive Government power to create a new salaried permanent office without the consent of Parliament? The office might be said to be represented in this House by the Secretary of State for War, but the Judge Advocate-General was not a mere subordinate. He had direct access to the Sovereign. He had personal responsibility for the findings of all courts-martial, which it was his duty to revise. They could hardly conceive a more important officer connected with the Army, and he ought to be responsible to this House. Therefore he hoped that as a result of the Amendment they would get an assurance from the Government that they would put an end to this anomalous state of things and place in the office which Mr. Milvain now
    986
    occupied a responsible member of the Government.
    Amendment proposed—
    "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.' "—(Mr. MacNeill.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. KEIR HARDIEdrew attention to the inadequacy of the rations of the private soldier. The allowance for a private soldier on the march was 4d. per night and a meal. An officer had 2s. For breakfast the private soldier got 1½d. In the last Parliament it was thought that the allowance was inadequate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon spoke of encouraging self-respect amongst our soldiers, but what self-respect could they expect from a man who was allowed 1½d. for breakfast? A tramp in the casual ward got a more generous allowance. He hoped, therefore, the Secretary of State would consider a revision of the scale, so as to give the soldier the feeling that he was not being treated as a menial of no account, but was receiving the respect due to a man and a soldier.
    MR. HALDANEsaid it was quite true that the lodging allowance of an officer was 2s. a night, but the officer had to pay for his food, which the soldier had not. The allowance for meals was fixed some little time ago, and on the whole it had worked out well, and proved in practice to be sufficient. It did not look a great deal, but when a considerable number of men were dealt with at the same time meals were provided at a comparatively low charge. Had complaints been received, however, he would have inquired into them at once, but complaints had not been received. Regarding the question raised in the Amendment it had been from time to time thought that the office of Judge Advocate-General had not been wholly satisfactory, having

    987
    regard to the peculiar qualifications required for the office, and Mr. Gladstone was not moved merely by considerations of economy—for no one more desired to see justice done—when he chose a judge of the High Court for the post. Consequently the work fell into the hands of a subordinate official, who did the work very well, but still was not in a position that the new Judge Advocate-General was. He received a salary of £1,500 a year, which came to an end with the termination of his office. Then the matter was inquired into not merely by the late Government, but was suggested by the Esher Committee, which came to the conclusion that it would be well to assimilate the arrangements in the Army with those in the Navy, and they advised the creation of a permanent Judge Advocate-General who should have some skill in military law. The late Government appointed a gentleman who, he could say from experience, showed great ability and wisdom in the discharge of his duties. He was bound to say that whether it was the imperfection of his own capacity or the perfection of the capacities of the occupier of the office, he found very little reason for altering the conclusions to which he arrived. It was true that the Judge Advocate-General was not in Parliament and responsible to Parliament, but the present arrangement was come to after the conclusions of the Esher Committee, and it was one which they could not depart from without making substantial compensation to the present occupant of the office, and, speaking for himself, he would prefer to see a person of long experience, such as Mr. Milvain was, to somebody who, however capable, could only give spare time to the increasing work of the office. Therefore, speaking for himself, he should prefer to leave these matters just as they stood at the present time. On the whole, he thought the new system was probably a better system, but be that as it might, it was a system they had got, and so, whatever might be the high constitutional grounds which brought about the original
    988
    office, they had adopted the system now, which was certainly much more in accordance with the conditions of the Navy, and was, on the whole, more useful to the Army.
    MR. STUART WORTLEYhoped the House would notice that no hon. Member had questioned the qualifications of Mr. Milvain for the discharge of the duties of his office, but they had a patent fact in this debate, that the hon. Member for Northampton had actually recommended that this House should proceed to a system of political proscription upon change of Government, upon a completely imperfect view of the whole circumstances of the case, and showing a complete ignorance of what had taken place.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid it was a most astonishing thing that hon. Members who had objected to various parts of the Bill for hour after hour in the last Parliament did not now propose even to amend the Bill.

    SUNDAY TRADING.
    Lords' Message [20th March], relating to the appointment of a Joint Committee on Sunday Trading, considered.
    Ordered, That a Select Committee of Five Members be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Lords (as mentioned in their Lordships' Message of 20th March) to inquire into the subject of Sunday Trading.—(Mr. George Whiteley.)
    And, it being after One of the Clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at half after One o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied a with: Folkestone, Sandgate, and Hythe Tramways (No. 1) [H.L.].
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Barry Railway Bill [H.L.]. A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
Essex and Suffolk Equitable Insurance Society Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Folkestone, Sandgate, and Hythe Tramways (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Glamorgan and South Wales Water Bill [H.L.]. Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to order), and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Kent Electric Power Bill [H.L.] Read. 2a (according to order), and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Vauclain's Patent Bill [H.L.]; Antofagasta (Chili) and Bolivia Railway Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Hull Joint Dock Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a. An amendment made. Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Penllwyn Railway and Road Bill [H.L.]; London and North Western Railway Bill [H.L.]; Great Western and Rhymney Railway Companies Bill [H.L.]; Barry Railway Bill [H.L.]; Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage
806
Board Bill [H.L.]; Cardiff Railway Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Belhaven and Stenton be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Verulam; read, and agreed to.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated March 19th, 1906, providing for the distribution of the general aid grant.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3538. Russia (Trade and agriculture, Poland and Lithuania).
  No. 3539. United States.
  No. 3540. Brazil (Trade for the year 1904).

  Correspondence relating to elementary education in Ceylon.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND).
  Return of the areas, population, and valuation of counties, burghs and parishes in Scotland.
  POLICE (SCOTLAND).
  Forty-eighth Annual Report of His Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland, for the year ended December 31st, 1905.

  TURKEY, No. 1 (1906).
  Further correspondence respecting the affairs of South-eastern Europe. (In continuation of "Turkey, No. 3. (1905).")
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury Minute, dated March 19th, 1906, declaring Changsha to be an unhealthy place within the meaning of the Superannuation Act, 1876.

  SEA AND COAST FISHERIES FUND (IRELAND) (NON-CONGESTED DISTRICTS).
  Account for the year ended December 31st, 1905.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
  Moved, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 19th day of June next. That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill originating in this House shall be read a first time after Thursday the 3rd day of May next. That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 19th day of June next. That when a Bill shall have passed this House with Amendments these orders shall not apply to any new Bill sent up from the House of Commons which the Chairman of Committees shall report to the House is substantially the same as the Bill so amended. That this House will not receive any petition for a Private Bill later than Thursday the 3rd day of May next, unless such Private Bill shall have been approved by the High Court of Justice; nor any petition for a Private Bill approved by the High Court of Justice after Tuesday, the 8th day of May next. That this House will not receive any report from the Judges upon petitions presented to this House for Private Bills after Tuesday the 8th day of May next."—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, in accordance with what I said to your Lordships three or four days ago with reference to strengthening the Committee of Selection, I now move that the Lords named on the Paper be added to the Committee.
  Moved, That the Lords following be added to the Committee, viz.—

  M. Ripon. (Lord Privy Seal.)

  E. Rosse.

  E. Camperdown.

  D. Bedford.

  L. Balfour.

  D. Northumberland.

  L. Brougham and Vaux

  M. Lansdowne.

  E. Lauderdale.

  L. Newton.

  —(The Earl of Onslow.)

  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS (REGISTRATION OF PATENT AGENTS) BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD COLERIDGE: My Lords, the Act of 1888, which my Bill seeks to amend, was passed in consequence of the Report of a Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Trade, which recommended that a register should be instituted of patent agents, and that the Board of Trade should have the power to erase the names of those who were proved by a committee appointed by them to have been guilty of disgraceful professional conduct. The Act provided that no person should practice as a patent agent, or, rather, that no person should use the words "patent agent," unless he was registered as such; and the result of that was that a number of persons, some of whom had been actually struck off the register for disgraceful professional conduct, continued to practice as before by the mere substitution of titles like "patent expert" and "inventors' agent," and the object of the Act, which was to protect inventors, was largely frustrated. In consequence, a Bill—practically my Bill—was introduced into the House of Commons in 1894, and it there passed its Second Reading and was referred to a Select Committee. The Select Committee passed unanimously the clause which is the substantive clause in my Bill, and then the general election came, and the Bill, like many others, went into limbo and was not heard of again.

  809
  Last year I introduced the Bill into your Lordships' House, and it was read a second time. It proceeded no further owing to certain objections being taken to it in detail, but those objections I have largely met by adding this year a clause providing that all existing interests shall be preserved, which I think is quite fair and right. I now ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading, as it did last year, and if there are any objections to it they can be dealt with in Committee. The principle of the Bill has been affirmed by both Houses of Parliament, and the measure meets a want largely felt by the profession.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(Lord Coleridge.)
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, I have to say, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that they have no objection to the Second Reading of this Bill. His Majesty's Government, however, reserve to themselves the right of moving any Amendments which they may think desirable when the Bill reaches the Committee stage.
  On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, there has been some little misunderstanding in this important Bill's being put down for Second Reading without adequate notice. I propose, therefore, to postpone the Second Reading until to-morrow. I think that will meet the convenience of those of your Lordships who take an interest in this question.
  Order for Second Reading postponed till to-morrow.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.