Sitting of 22 November 1906

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Great Northern Railway (Ireland) Bill [Lords]. Read a third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Edinburgh Corporation (Superannuation) Order Confirmation Bill. Considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

PETITIONS.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCISE.
  Petitions for extension to women; from New Barnet, and Torpoint; to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION ACTS (COMPULSORY CLAUSES).
  Petition from Bristol, for repeal; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
  Copy presented, of Return of Proceedings during the month of October, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF DURHAM).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the County Council of Durham altering

  963
  certain polling districts in the Chester-le-Street Parliamentary Division [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Colonial Report No. 510 (St. Vincent, Report for 1905–6) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  INCLOSURES (COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 19th June; Mr. Essex]; to lie upon the Table.
  INCLOSURES (COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND.)
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 26th June; Mr. Fullerton]; to lie upon the Table.
  INCLOSURES (COUNTY OF NORFOLK).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 29th June; Mr. Winfrey]; to lie upon the Table.
  INCLOSURES (COUNTY OF SUFFOLK).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 11th July; Mr. George Hardy]; to lie upon the Table.
  INCLOSURES (COUNTY OF SURREY).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 13th July; Mr. Marnham]; to lie upon the Table.
  INCLOSURES (COUNTY OF KENT).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 1st August; Mr. Rowlands]; to lie upon the Table.
  MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES.
  Return ordered, "showing the number of persons in the employ of the London County Council and the council of each metropolitan borough and of each county borough in England and Wales at any time during the week ended Saturday, the 3rd day of November, 1906, distinguishing the number employed on the clerical staff."—(Mr. Claude Hay.)

  PERTH PRISON.
  Return ordered, "showing (1) number of prisoners transfered from Barlinnie Prison to Perth Prison during the past three years; (2) length of original sentence on each of the above prisoners;
  964
  (3) length of sentence still to run at the date of transfer."—(Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Machinery of Battleships — Government Work and Private Contractors.
  MR. BELLAIES: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that an experiment was at one time tried of making engines in the Government establishments, H.M.S. "Encounter" and some sloops being selected for the purpose, that H.M.S. "Encounter's" completion was delayed in consequence, and her trials were on several occasions unsatisfactory; whether he is also aware that the dockyard machinery of the "Fantome" and "Merlin" cost more than £28,000 in each case, while that obtained by contract for the "Espiegle" of the same class, cost £18,516; and, if so, whether the Board will discourage attempts to substitute work in Government establishments for what is already done economically and efficiently by private firms.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Engines have been made in the dockyards for His Majesty's vessels, including the "Encounter," and the delay in the completion of her trials is not attributable to this, nor was the manufacture considered solely in the light of an experiment. The question of the relative cost of the machinery of the vessels named was dealt with by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his report, 1902–3, page 220, paragraph 8, and also in Report of Public Accounts Committee, 1903, pages 76 and 77. The question as to distribution of work between Government yards and private firms is and will be carefully considered in the placing of orders.

  Service Gratuities—Case of Mrs. Pitt, late of Royal William Victualling Yard, Devonport.
  SIR JOHN BENN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that Mrs. E. Pitt, who has been working in the Royal William Victualling Yard, Devonport,

  965
  for seventeen and a half years was discharged last month at a few days notice without a gratuity; and whether, in view of the fact that she was promised such consideration at the end of her service, he will cause inquiries to be made in her case, so that the usual allowance may be granted.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Mrs. Pitts, hired bedmaker, was, after three weeks notice, discharged on the 31st ultimo, having been allowed to remain in the service for some time after reaching the usual age. It is not possible to award her a service gratuity because, although her original entry was in April, 1889, her total service was less than fifteen years, which under the Superannuation Acts, is the minimum period necessary to qualify a hired person, discharged on account of age, for an award. Mrs. Pitts' actual service amounted to fourteen years twenty-eight days; but, in view of the broken and intermittent character, the rules do not permit of more than eleven years 301 days being reckoned for the purpose of a gratuity. In regard to the alleged promise, Mrs. Pitts was merely informed that she would receive such treatment on discharge as her services entitled her to under the regulations. The question of awarding Mrs. Pitts a small grant from the Civil Compassionate Fund will be considered.

  Compensation for loss of hearing to Lieutenant F. Coplestone.
  MR. MOND: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the case of Lieutenant F. Coplestone, retired owing to the loss of hearing in one ear caused by gunfire, who has been awarded the sum of £32 as compensation for the loss of the hearing of this ear; whether this is the usual amount of compensation paid for such an accident; and whether, in view of the inadequacy of the amount in relation to the injury sustained, he will consider the question of revising the sums payable in this and similar cases.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) This case has received the careful consideration of the Admiralty. Lieutenant Coplestone was invalided in October last for deafness and placed on the
  966
  retired list on half pay of 5s. a day. As the disability from which he suffered was probably an after result of concussion from gunfire, when he was serving as midshipman on H.M.S. "Hannibal," in 1901 (although this is not certain), his case was treated as for an injury received on duty, and he was medically surveyed in respect of the extent of the injury. This having been reported to be "not equal to the loss of a limb," the Admiralty have no power to grant more than the limit fixed by the regulations, viz., a gratuity of less than one year's full pay of an officer's rank at the time of the accident. Mr. Coplestone was accordingly awarded the most that he could receive, viz., a gratuity of 364 days pay as midshipman, and he was informed that if his deafness increased to a serious extent his case would be reconsidered on his presenting it. The Answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative, and it is not proposed to make any alteration in the regulations.

  Advertising Vacant Postmastership, etc.
  MR. MORTON: To ask the Postmater-General if his attention has been called to the fact that the postmastership of Dalkeith, the postmistress-ship of South Queensferry, and the postmistress-ship of Bridge of Allan, have been filled without advertisement in the Post Office circular; whether departmental witnesses before the Select Committee of this House on Post Office Wages, have assured Members that vacancies were advertised, to give all grades a chance of making application; and, if so, whether the Postmaster-General can state the reason for the abandonment of this policy.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The postmasters and mistresses of the offices referred to were interchanged for disciplinary reasons, and there was no question of filling vacancies in the ordinary sense. As explained to the Select Committee, it is necessary on certain rare occasions to depart from the ordinary practice of advertising vacant post-masterships.

  Telegraph Learners at Carlisle.
  MR. CHANCE: To ask the Postmaster-General, whether there are

  967
  two male telegraph learners at Carlisle awaiting appointment who have been in the service six years; whether two vacancies exist in the ranks of male telegraphists and, if so, whether he will take steps to fill these vacancies as soon as possible.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The two appointments in question are in process of being carried out and will be completed very shortly. The service as learner, however, dates in both cases from February, 1902.

  Telegraph Delays at Bristol.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that during the recent visit of the Minister of Education to Bristol, the commercial telegraph work suffered delay, the staff in the daytime was reduced in order to attend for the press work in the evening; that messages of urgent business importance were delayed over 60 minutes; that 220 waits were given on the concentrator system; that a number of sets of instruments were unused for want of staff; and whether he will inquire into the arrangements of the Bristol office.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am having inquiry made upon the subject and will inform the hon. Member of the result.

  Overtime and Pressure of Work in the Post Office Telegraph Department.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the Postmaster-General, whether the staff at the telegraph office drew his attention to telegraphic work and abnormal pressure during the summer months; whether it was alleged by the department that no abnormal pressure existed as overtime was avoided; whether at that time officers employed in the survey branch and chief superintendent's, office were placed on instrument duty in the telegraph office; whether their arrears of work were cleared off by the staff taking official papers to their homes and attending office on the Sunday; whether, in recognition of the extra work imposed on these men, a number of days' holiday have been added to their annual leave; and whether he was aware of these facts when he stated that
  968
  as overtime payment was avoided no pressure existed.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have already given the matter attention, but am making further inquiry into the question.

  Management of Crown Lands.
  MR. ROGERS: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether, in view of the fact that the agents to the Woods and Forests Commissioners receive as remuneration for management of their agricultural property a poundage on the rents collected, when the farms are let, and fixed fees for the management of each farm in hand, and in view of the fact that in the case of the 4,280 acres in hand during the year ending 31st March, 1906, the expenditure exceeded the receipts, he will state what these fixed fees are, how they are arrived at, and whether the Commissioners are considering the substitution of a poundage on profits for fixed fees as remuneration for the management of those farms which are in hand.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The fixed fees allowed to the agents in respect of farms in hand include their expenses. They are usually fixed with reference to the rent that may be expected and to the number of visits to the property that under ordinary circumstances are to be anticipated and the expenses entailed by such visits. The fees allowed are as follows:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Burwell—917 acres

  62

  0

  0

  Barton Farm—768 acres, together with woodlands containing 345 acres and the charge of several miles of roads and sea wall, &c.

  150

  0

  0

  Neats Court (Isle of Sheppy) 1,157½ acres

  49

  7

  0

  Potters Hill (Oxford)—490½ acres

  52

  0

  0

  Shimpling (Suffolk)—572 acres

  45

  0

  0

  Land at Wingland (Lincolnshire)—357 acres

  36

  0

  0

  £394

  7

  0

  The question of the remuneration of the agents on the profits has been considered, but it has not been held to be

  969
  practicable or desirable to adopt such a system.

  Women's Enfranchisement—Arrest of Miss Milne.
  MR. CLYNES: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, in view of the fact that Miss Milne, of Manchester, is now in prison for actions which are merely acts of peaceful protest, and which the evidence in the Westminister police court shows were committed, at the same time, by other ladies, he will explain why action has not been taken against these other ladies; and whether he will take steps to secure that different treatment shall not be given in the case of persons who in the same manner are proclaiming their title to a vote.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) On inquiry into the facts I find that Miss Milne was convicted of resisting the police in the execution of their duty. Their duty was to prevent an illegal assembly in the immediate vicinity of this House, and I see no reason to give them any instructions to make more arrests than are necessary for the purpose of discharging this duty.

  Motor Omnibuses—Danger to Travelling Public.
  MR. T. DAVIES: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to several accidents to motor omnibuses in crossing the bridges of London; is he aware that, on 30th October, while a motor omnibus was proceeding northward over Waterloo Bridge, it mounted the pavement on the west side and collided with the parapet and damaged it for about 125 feet, and had not the structure been specially strong the omnibus and passengers would have gone over; and, in view of the consequences which may have ensued, will he cause to be issued special regulations so as to ensure the safety of the travelling public.
  (Answered by Mr. Gladstone Secretary.) I have seen reports of the accident on Waterloo Bridge which was due to skidding, and I have already communicated with the Commissioner of Police about
  970
  this occurrence, and on the general question of such accidents on bridges.

  Education Aid Grants.
  MR. BRACE: To ask the President of the Board of Education, whether his attention has been called to the effect upon heavily rated education authorities, of the system adopted in the dispensation of the new special aid grant, voted for this year; and whether, in the Bill promised for next session, he will have regard, in the dispensation of all Exchequer grants for education, to the proceeds of a rate of a penny in the pound divided by the number of elementary school children to be educated, to the existing school provision, and to the liabilities now borne by operative districts which have had in the past few years to burden themselves heavily in the provision of new council school accommodation.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have nothing to add to the reply I gave on the 16th instant to the hon. Member for Essex (South-East).† The matter is being very carefully considered.

  Refusal of Application of Pupil Teachers to enter Cheltenham Training College.
  MR. O'GRADY: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether the case of a pupil teacher studying at the Thoresby High School, Leeds, having made application to enter the Ladies' Training College, Cheltenham, and whose application was refused, has been officially submitted to him by the Leeds education authority for inquiry; if so, has such inquiry been made, and with what result.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. Careful inquiry will be made into the matter referred to in the Question. I may add that Miss Beale, the late head of the college, died only a few days ago. Her death is a great loss for all who are interested in the development of women's education, in which she played so large a part.
  † See Col. 223.

  Protest against proposed Partition of Khandesh, Bombay Presidency.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to a memorial of protest against the proposal to partition the district of Khandesh, in the Bombay Presidency, which has been addressed to the Governor of Bombay by the citizens of Dhalia, the chief town of the district, in public meeting assembled; and whether, in view of the complaint made in the memorial that the inhabitants of the district have not been consulted in the matter, he will issue instructions to the various administrations in India that due consideration shall in future be shown to the wishes and sentiments of the people concerned before such measures of dismemberment are put into operation.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I promised, in reply to a similar Question which the hon. Member asked on the 13th November with reference to the Madura District, to communicate with the Government of Madras on the subject.† I will communicate in the same sense with the Government of India and the Government of Bombay.

  Police and Students at Mymensingh.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the unprovoked attack, on the 27th October last, made by a body of police, led in person by the district superintendent, upon a party of students at Mymensingh who were on their way to the gaol to welcome a fellow student on his release from a term of imprisonment inflicted for participation in the Swadeshi movement; and whether he will inquire into the circumstances of this assault upon a number of individuals who were committing no offence at the time.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) My attention has been called to a newspaper report of the occurrence to which the hon. Member refers. If the information which that report contains in correct, the persons aggrieved have
  † See (4) Debates, clxiv., 1286–7.
  972
  their remedy either in a court of law or by appeal to the local government and to the Government of India. As at present advised, I see no reason for taking any action.

  Irish Land Tenants.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can take steps to find out the number of future tenants in Ireland; and whether seeing that they are excluded from all benefits under the rent-fixing clauses of the Land Acts, and are thus as much at the mercy of their landlords as the Irish tenant of the 'seventies, steps will be taken to amend the law so as to bring future tenants within its operation.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I beg to refer to the very full Answer given by my right hon. friend the Attorney-General for Ireland to a Question on this subject put by the hon. Member for North Westmeath on 7th March last.‡ The hon. Member will see from that answer that it is incorrect to suggest that future tenants are at the mercy of their landlords, seeing that, if such tenants are evicted without cause, they are entitled to compensation for both disturbance and improvements. I have already stated on several occasions that I cannot, in reply to a Question, discuss the possibility of legislation in regard to future tenants.

  The Case of J. R. O'Sullivan.
  MR. FLYNN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed by the Millstreet Board of Guardians, and which has been forwarded to His Excellency the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland praying i for the release of the political prisoner, John R. O'Sullivan, now confined in Maryborough Prison, and who has already suffered sixteen years imprisonment in connection with an agrarian offence; and whether, in view of the peaceable condition of the entire district, and the precarious condition of the health of the prisoner's wife, he will
  ‡See (4) Debates, cliii., 452.

  973
  use his good offices with His Excellency towards securing the exercise of the clemency of the Crown in regard to the prisoner.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) A copy of the resolution passed by the Millstreet Rural District Council, appealing for the release of John R. Sullivan, has been received and will be submitted to the Lord-Lieutenant. It is to be observed that the offences of which Sullivan was convicted cannot properly be described as political offences. I am informed that Sullivan has now served almost fifteen years of the sentences imposed upon him, and at the expiration of that period his case will come before His Excellency for consideration. It does not fall within my province to make any recommendation to the Lord-Lieutenant upon the subject, but the hon. Member may rest assured that all the circumstances of the case will receive full consideration at His Excellency's hands.

  Purchase of the Clonfin Estate, North Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any further steps have been taken by the Estates Commissioners to acquire the Clonfin estate in North Longford, as an insolvent estate, with a view to dividing the 400 acres of untenanted lands on it between the evicted tenants of county Longford, of whom eighty-six have made application for restoration to the Commissioners.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that no further information on the subject of this estate has reached them since I answered the hon. Member's previous Question on 23rd July last.† The Commissioners, however, are again communicating with the solicitors who represent the estate.

  Refusal of Gun Licence.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: TO ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that
  † See (4) Debates, clxi., 693.
  974
  Mr. John M. Kilkelly, R.M., at Longford has refused to grant to Thomas Casey, of Caltrabeg, barony of Rathcline, county Longford, a licence to carry arms beyond the confines of his own farm, although he has a licence to keep a gun in his house and carry the same on his farm; whether he is aware that Mr. Casey is a respectable young man, never charged with any offence, and wants to get the extended licence in order occasionally to visit the farm of his sister at Elfeete, three miles distant; and will he direct that the usual licence be now granted to him.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The resident magistrate informs me that he has no record of having refused to grant an extension of licence to Thomas Casey The discretion of issuing these licences is vested in the resident magistrate, and the proper course would appear to be for Casey to make a formal application to the magistrate, and this will, I have no doubt, receive due consideration.

  Purchase of the Crofton Estate, North Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any proposals have yet been made to or by the Estates Commissioners for the purchase of the Crofton estate at Kiltycreevagh in North Longford; whether he is aware that for at least two years past there are at least six persons claiming to own this property, on which there are sixty farms, most of them being under £4 valuation; whether he is aware that the tenants are anxious to have this estate purchased by the Estates Commissioners as a congested estate, and so dealt with by them; whether any inspection of the property can be ordered with a view to such purchase; and, if so, will he direct that an inspector will visit this district with a view to making a Report on the general state of the property and its being an estate which conies within the meaning of the Land Purchase Act of 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners assume that this Question refers to the estate of Miss M. A. Crofton, county Leitrim. They inform me that

  975
  they have had this estate inspected with a view to purchase, and have communicated to the owner's agent the estimated price which they are prepared to give, but have not yet heard whether the owner will accept that price. The Commissioners are not aware of any complications in the title, but this will be a matter for subsequent investigation.

  Applications of Evicted Tenants for Reinstatement in county Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, to state the number of applications made by evicted tenants for restoration under the Land Purchase Act, 1903, to their own or equivalent holdings in county Longford; how many of these applications have been dealt with by the Commissioners, and in how many cases has restoration taken place; and can he hold out any hopes of a speedy settlement of these cases by migration or otherwise.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that 108 applications for reinstatement have been received from evicted tenants in county Longford. In thirteen of the cases the applicants are outside the scope of the Act, and in three cases the Commissioners have decided to take no action. Sixteen applicants have been reinstated by the landlord, and one by the Commissioners. The remaining applications will be inquired into as soon as possible.

  English Education Grants—Equivalent Grant to Ireland.
  MR. FLYNN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say what arrangements have been proposed for a grant to Ireland as an equivalent for the proposed additional grant to England and Wales under the present Education Bill; and whether, in view of the admittedly defective condition of primary education in Ireland in regard to school buildings, salaries, and other matters, the Irish Government will make adequate representations to the Treasury authorities before the Education Estimates for 1906–7 are prepared.
  976
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) In reply to the first part of the Question, I would refer to the Answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a Question put by the hon. Member for North Derry on 30th April.† My right hon. friend then stated that, as the financial arrangements under the Education Bill will not come into force during the present financial year, it would be premature to come to any decision upon the question of an equivalent grant for Ireland. As to the remaining part of the Question, I understand that the estimates for national education in Ireland are at present under the consideration of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland.

  Refusal to admit to Licensed Premises.
  MR. GLENDINNING: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Irish Government has been called to the fact that Mr. Lindsay Crawford and his friends were refused admission to the Brownlow Arms Hotel, Lurgan, a few days ago: and, as these are licensed premises, have the police instituted proceedings against the proprietors for this breach of the law.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that on the 12th inst, a few days before the polling for North Armagh, Mr. Crawford and his friends were refused admission to the Brownlow Arms Hotel at Lurgan. It would appear that Mr. Crawford had just attempted to address a meeting but had failed to obtain a hearing, and was being pursued by a large and somewhat menacing crowd when he sought admission to the hotel. In the opinion of the police the house would have suffered at the hands of the crowd, despite the efforts of the police, if Mr. Crawford had been admitted. No proceedings have yet been instituted, but the question whether an offence against the licensing or other law was committed by the proprietor of the hotel is at present under consideration.

  Purchase of Untenanted Land on the M'Farlane Estate, County Tyrone
  MR. MURNAGHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord
  † See (4) Debates, clvi., 237.

  977
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an application by the tenant purchasers of the M'Farlane property situate at Mullaghearn, County Tyrone, was made to the Estates Commissioners, urging them to buy the untenanted portion of the estate for enlargement purposes, in order to give relief to the several tenants whose holdings are too small to afford a livelihood to the occupiers, will he say what reply was given to the application, and if any steps have been taken by the Estates Commissioners to take over the untenanted land with the view of distributing it among the purchasers of uneconomic farms; and further, will he urge on the Estates Commissioners the desirability of taking immediate steps to get possession of that part of the estate available for enlarging or otherwise enhancing the value of the small holdings.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: TO ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenant purchasers of the M'Farlane property at Mullaghearn, county Tyrone, are in a state of anxiety lest the sporting rights be purchased over their heads to the detriment of their holdings; is he aware that the Estates Commissioners have been asked to purchase these rights on behalf of the tenants in order to safeguard the crops against destruction by game and injury to fences by sportsmen; will he state what steps have been taken in this direction; and, seeing that the sporting rights are advertised for sale on the 30th instant before the Master of the Bolls, will he point out to the Estates Commissioners the desirability of being represented at the sale to secure for the tenants the undisturbed enjoyment of their holdings, the cost of which the tenants are willing to have added to the purchase price.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they cannot trace the receipt of any application from the tenants in respect of either the untenanted lands or the sporting rights on the McFarlane Estate. It would appear from the second Question that the estate is in the Land Judge's Court. The Commissioners have not issued any request under Section 7 with a
  978
  view to acquiring the property, and if, as would appear from the Question, the sporting rights are about to be sold by auction as a separate property, the Commissioners would have no legal power to purchase property of this nature.

  Dr. Kenny's Galway Estate.
  MR. JOHN ROCHE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Congested Districts Board have purchased Dr. Kenny's estate in the county of Galway, which has been in the possession of the Board for nearly three years; and, seeing that there are six families living upon it whose holdings do not exceed more than one acre each, and that there are four others under £5 valutaion, will he direct that the land be distributed without further delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Congested Districts Board arranged to purchase the estate in question in August, 1904, that is a little over two years ago; The estate has not yet been legally vested in the Board, but until this is done steps cannot be taken for its re-sale to the tenants.

  Gun Licences for Irish Farmers.
  MR. JOHN ROCHE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Thomas Keary, D.C., of Kililand Mills, county Galway, has purchased his holding, which contains 40 acres; and whether he will direct the resident magistrate to grant him a licence for a gun so that he may protect his crop.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) It is, I am informed, the fact that Mr. Keary has purchased his farm. I understand that the resident magistrate of the district has, in the exercise of the discretion vested in him, refused to issue a licence to Mr. Keary for the possession of arms. The matter does not appear to require any interference by the Irish Government.

  Housing of Irish Town Labourers.
  MR. P. A. MCHUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the condition of

  979
  labourers in towns in Ireland in regard to housing accommodation; and whether the Government is considering this matter with a view to legislation.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) In reply to several Questions on this subject earlier in the session, I stated that it is the intention of the Government, at a convenient opportunity, to consider whether any amendments of the law relating to the housing of the working classes in the towns of Ireland may be necessary. I am not in a position to add anything to that statement at present. The matter will not be lost sight of.

  Mrs. Lewis's Balinagar Estate.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how far the negotiations have proceeded in connection with the purchase by the Estates Commissioners of Mrs. Lewis's estate, Balinagar, Loughrea, and when the evicted tenants on the estate may expect anything to be done for them.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received their inspector's report upon the estate in question, and it is at present under their consideration. The estimated price of the estate will be communicated to the vendor, and if this should be accepted the question of the reinstatement of evicted tenants will be considered in connection with the re-sale of the lands.

  De Freyne Estate.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what price was given by the Congested Districts Board for the Ballyfindon, Loughrea, section of the De Freyne estate; and, seeing that the tenants were on the point of purchasing it two years ago from the agent of the estate, whether he will instruct the Congested Districts Board to take steps at once to transfer the lands to the tenants.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that the price paid by the Congested Districts Board for the portion of Lord De Freyne's estate, situate at
  980
  Ballyfindon, Loughrea, was £3,400. Steps are at present being taken for the sale of the property to the tenants, and the matter will be carried through as soon as possible.

  Royal Patriotic Fund.
  MR. BYLES: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether Mrs. Anne Kerry, the widow of a soldier killed at Inkerman, who has lately been deprived of her Patriotic Fund pension of 10s. a week and sent into hospital at the Loughrea workhouse, cannot be removed to some more congenial hospital and have her pension restored to her; and whether the remaining resources of the Royal Patriotic Fund expressly and generously subscribed half a century ago for her and other widows of Crimean soldiers, do not entitle this lady in her great age and infirmity to more considerate treatment.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The facts of this case, as represented to me by the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, were fully explained in an Answer given on my behalf on Monday last by my hon. friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board to the hon. Member for South Galway.† I have nothing to add to that reply.

  Naval Manœuvres Report.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if any Report will be issued concerning the recent naval manœuvres, and the general conclusions to be drawn therefrom, and particularly as regards the safety of the ocean food routes to the United Kingdom and the theories of the so-called blue-water school.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) A Report of the recent naval manœuvres will be presented to Parliament shortly, and in the meantime I am unable to anticipate the scope of its contents, which must necessarily be determined by the consideration of the interests of the public service.

  Chatham Dockyard.
  MR. E. H. LAMB: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, in
  † See Col. 375.

  981
  dealing with the allocation of dockyard work, whether he can see his way to follow the example of the Secretary of State for War in connection with Woolwich Arsenal, and fix a minimum below which the number of workmen employed in His Majesty's dockyard at Chatham shall not fall; and whether he will fix such minimum not lower than the number at present employed.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) No definite assurance can be given that the present number of men employed at Chatham will be fixed as a future minimum, having regard to the fact that the number must be determined by the varying requirements of the Fleet.

  North Glamorgan Official Receiver.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil): To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is contemplated to remove the bankruptcy offices from Merthyr Tydvil to Pontypridd; whether the business men of Merthyr and district have been consulted and their consent obtained to the removal; and whether, since the removal is likely to cause loss and inconvenience to the people of Merthyr and district, he will undertake not to sanction the same until opportunity has been given to those interested for further consultation.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) As regards the intention of fixing the office of the new official receiver for the North Glamorgan district at Pontypridd, the hon. Member is referred to the Answer given orally this afternoon to the other hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. It has not been thought necessary to seek the consent of traders and others resident at Merthyr Tydvil on a question which has to be considered with regard to the convenience of the district as a whole. It will, however, be arranged that the new official receiver shall have at Merthyr an agent to represent him in local matters.

  Government Stationery Contracts in Ireland.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that in the case of firms selected to estimate for work required in London in connection with His Majesty's Stationery
  982
  Department the Government supply the paper in a large number of cases, but that when sent to Ireland carriage has to be paid by the contractor, and when manufactured has to be returned carriage paid; and whether, seeing that such charges for carriage often mean the entire profit an English firm would have on the whole work, he will in future make arrangements as will enable Irish firms to contract on equal terms with English competitors.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The procedure in regard to paper used by Government printing contractors is that the paper is delivered by the makers to the Stationery Offices in London, Dublin, and Edinburgh. In no case would it be practicable for the Stationery Office to pay the cost of carriage to or from provincial contractors.

  Technical Agricultural Education.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what is the amount that is annually spent by the educational authorities, national and local, upon technical education in agriculture in England and Wales.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The expenditure by county councils in England and Wales upon agricultural instruction (exclusive of grants to evening continuation schools) was, approximately, £91,000 in 1903–4, and £87,000 in 1904–5. In the same years the grants made by the Board of Agriculture in aid of educational institutions amounted to £9,200 and £10,200, respectively, so that the expenditure on agricultural education in these two years has been at the rate of nearly £100,000 a year. This is exclusive of grants made by the Board of Education to elementary, secondary, or evening schools where instruction may be given in subjects of an agricultural character.

  West Biding Appeal.
  MR. TALBOT: To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether he can say when the appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal in what is known as the West Riding Case is likely to be heard before the House of Lords.

  983
  (Answered by Sir John Walton.) The Attorney-General is unable to say at present when this appeal will he heard.

  Carrickmacross Postal Arrangements.
  MR. MCKEAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a letter posted in Carrickmacross, in the county of Monaghan, at 10.30 p.m. is not delivered in Belfast till 3.15 p.m. the following day; that up till a few months ago a letter posted at the hour mentioned would be delivered at 12 o'clock noon the next day; will he say why the arrangements for this speedier delivery have been discontinued; and whether he will consider the advisability, having regard to the increasing business requirements of the places referred to, of restoring the original arrangements or having some new and better ones made.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am making inquiry on this subject and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  New Zealand Bating System.
  SIR ALBERT SPICER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of the New Zealand Commissioner of Taxes, as published by the Colonial Office in Cd. 3191, in which he states that in no case where the system of rating on the unimproved value has been carried out has the former system of rating been reverted to, and the ratepayers as a rule, with few exceptions, are decidedly in favour of the system, and the approval is strengthened as time goes on and the effect of it is seen; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation enabling local authorities to make a similar rating reform in this country.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have seen the report referred to. I am not at present in a position to make any promise to introduce legislation to the effect suggested.

  Bombay Police Pay.
  MR. RIDSDALE: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, as from 1st April, an increase of pay to
  984
  certain grades of the Bombay police force was sanctioned by him; whether these additional payments have been made; and, if not, why they have been withheld.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The Answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. I understand that pay at the revised rates is now being issued by the Government of Bombay.

  Indian Rupee Coinage.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India is coining a rupee with the prerogative of unlimited legal tender, and is making a profit of 3d. each rupee; whether there were coined in 1900 over 170,000,000 of these coins at a profit very much greater than 3d. each; whether by similar means in Great Britain the Government has ever closed the English Mint to free coinage of sovereigns, and has exacted a seignorage of 4s. per each sovereign coined; whether in the history of currency in any country the money metal which constitutes the unlimited legal tender currency of the country has ever been subjected to an import tariff: whether silver, the metal of the legal tender currency of British India, is to-day subject to an ad valorem tariff in the ports of India; and whether a protective or revenue tariff on gold and silver bullion is the established policy of the present Government of India.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The replies to these questions are as follows:—(1) The rupee is unlimited legal tender in India; (2) The profit on the coinage of a rupee at the present price of silver is slightly in excess of 3d. (3) The number of rupees coined in 1900–1 (including the recoinage of old rupees) was approximately 173,000,000, and the profit on each rupee was considerably in excess of 3d. (4) This question should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; (5) This question should be addressed to the President of the Board of Trade. (6) There is in India an Import duty on silver, as on many other articles, of 5 per cent. ad valorem. (7) The Indian Import duties are imposed for revenue, not for protective purposes.

  Phœnix Park Playing Grounds.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can explain why an equitable distribution of the playing-grounds on the Fifteen Acres, Phoenix Park, Dublin, is not made between Gaelic football and association football clubs, considering the fact that the former are more numerous than the latter; whether he can state why, out of the thirty-three grounds in the Fifteen Acres, only three are devoted to Gaelic games, while the remainder are devoted to association football; what reason can be given for this state of affairs, seeing that during the greater portion of the season the majority of grounds devoted to association football are never used, while on the remainder of those grounds only one match per ground per Sunday is played, while the Gaelic clubs are compelled, owing to the small number of grounds they possess, to play three matches on each ground per Sunday, which necessitates the players and officials of Gaelic clubs remaining in the park from 11 o'clock of a Sunday morning until 5 or 6 o'clock in the evening.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will request the Commissioners of Public Works to make an equitable distribution of the present grounds on the Fifteen Acres, by devoting an equal number of the grounds between Gaelic and association clubs, and thus make the latter play two matches on each ground instead of one as at present; and whether, in view of the discontent that exists amongst Gaelic clubs and the general public in Dublin, owing to the manner in which the former are being treated in this matter, he will request the Commissioners of Public Works favourably to reconsider this whole question of grounds in the Fifteen Acres.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The space assigned for games in the Phoenix Park cannot be extended, and the Commissioners of Public Works have every desire to allot it amongst the various games in such a way as will meet the reasonable requirements of each section. There are thirty-one grounds on the Fifteen Acres (not thirty-three as stated
  986
  by the hon. Member) and three are allotted for Gaelic games in addition to another ground in another portion of the park. It should he remembered that the Gaelic game requires nearly twice as much ground as the association and accommodates thirty-four players as against twenty-two. The information which the Commissioners possess does not support the contention that the Gaelic clubs are more numerous than the association. They have reason to think that the reverse is true and the grounds allotted to the association game are fully utilised during the season. By a little organisation between the Gaelic clubs hours might easily be arranged for playing consecutive matches on the same ground on Sunday so as to avoid the inconvenience referred to by the hon. Member. The principal factor in determining the allocation of the space for the various games is the anxiety of the Board to provide on Sunday as many grounds as possible for those association clubs who are only able to play on that day, and who, but for the grounds in the park, would be prevented by lack of funds from playing at all. These clubs are much more numerous than the Gaelic clubs, and the latter are much better able to afford grounds. For Sunday next all the association grounds have already been allotted, and nearly fifty games are unprovided for. The decision as to the number of grounds allotted for association games on Sunday determines the allocation for Saturday, as, owing to the difference of size, the grounds for the two games are not interchangeable. Moreover, owing to the shortness of the time on Saturday afternoon, only one game can be played on each ground, but on Saturdays too, considerably more association clubs have to be disappointed than can be provided for, while the demand for Gaelic matches is small. The Commissioners inform me that they have under consideration whether, by a rearrangement of one or two grounds, an additional Gaelic ground on the Fifteen Acres can be provided, and if this is found possible the change will be carried out.

  Royal Irish. Constabulary Funds.
  MR. COGAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieu-

  987
  tenant of Ireland whether he will make arrangements with the Treasury to secure that whatever balance remains of the Poyal Irish Constabulary Force Fund, when is it being wound up, will be placed to the credit of the Irish Development Grant Fund.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am afraid that the suggestion in the Question is impracticable. If the hon. Member will refer to Parliamentary Paper, No. 118, of Session 1891, he will see that, as the Constabulary Force Fund was then hopelessly insolvent, the Exchequer came to its aid with an advance of £150, 000, and it was a condition of the advance that any surplus which might remain to the credit of the fund, after the discharge of the liabilities already incurred should be returned to the Exchequer.

  Royal Irish Constabulary, Distribution of the Force.
  MR. MCKILLOP,: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is contrary to any rules or custom of the constabulary authorities in Ireland to permit a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary being stationed in his native county; and, if so, will he state why a native of the county of Armagh who is sergeant of constabulary, is in charge of the police station at Loughgall, county Armagh.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The members of the Royal Irish Constabulary are not permitted to serve in their native county. The sergeant at present stationed at Loughgall, county Armagh, is a native of the county Tyrone.

  Belmullet Petty Sessions Clerks.
  MR. CONOR O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many days in the week the clerk of petty sessions in Belmullet, county Mayo, attends his office for the performance of his duties; the hours at which his office is opened and closed; and whether, in case there is no continuous daily attendance on the part of the clerk, he will take steps to order such attendance in the interest of public convenience.
  988
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks informs mo that the petty sessions clerk of Belmullet attends at his office from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. on every Wednesday and Saturday, as well as on fair days. He is also in attendance on petty sessions days, namely, every alternate Monday. The registrar has received no complaints from the public in respect of the clerk's attendance, and he is of opinion that judging from the limited amount of sessions business transacted, the present hours of attendance are sufficient. In addition to the regular attendance it is the duty of the petty sessions clerk to attend to the public whenever they may come to his house on petty sessions business.

  Roman Catholic Schools in Ireland.
  MR. SLOANTo ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state how many schools there are under Roman Catholic management with salary withdrawn over neglect to carry out repairs; how long are such schools suspended before finally struck off; whether salary will be paid in full, including back salary, when repairs are executed; whether schools during suspension are liable to annual inspection as other schools.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that within the last three years salary has been withdrawn, for the reason mentioned, from eight schools under Roman Catholic management. There is no fixed rule as to the length of time which must elapse before such schools are finally struck off. Each case is dealt with according to circumstances. When repairs have been executed, the question of restoration of salaries and of the amounts to be paid is considered by the Commissioners. Schools under suspension of grants are liable to inspection.

  Labourers' Cottages at Moira.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on 25th September, 1905, the Moira Rural Council held a local inquiry to consider the representations sent in for erection of

  989
  labourers' cottages, that out of 108 applications, sixty-eight were rejected, and that ten of those rejected sent in representations to the Local Government Board within twenty-one days from time of rejection, but that no action has been taken; and will he say what steps, if any, does the Local Government Board intend taking in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Local Government Board are aware that representations alleging the necessity for 129 labourers' cottages were considered by the Moira Rural District Council on the date mentioned, and that sixty-eight were rejected for reasons assigned. Several of the labourers whose applications were rejected complained to the Local Government Board, but generally without adequate cause. The scheme in question was dealt with under the former Labourers Acts. The Local Government Board are now provided, under Section 9 of the new Act, with means which will enable them to secure the making of a suitable scheme in any cases in which a council may fail to deal effectively with the representations made to them.

  Smith Estate, Cootehill.
  MR. McKEAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if any, and, if so, what steps have been or are being taken towards the re-instatement of Andrew Beggan, a tenant evicted from his holding on the Smith estate at Cootehill, portion of which extends into the county of Monaghan; also whether he will say what the report of the inspector who visited Beggan on the 18th July, 1906, has been; and whether the Estates Commissioners purpose taking any action as a consequence of the report; and, if so, when they will take such action.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners understand that Andrew Beggan is at present in occupation of the holding from which he was evicted. The holding has been inspected and valued, and the owner has intimated that he is prepared to accept the price placed on it by the Commissioners with the view of its sale to Beggan. The Commissioners are prepared to make a
  990
  grant to assist the purchaser to live on and work the holding.

  Army Quarter-Masters.
  SIR CARNE RASCH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the retired pay of Army quartermasters is dependent on length of service, not rank, and of the fact that the question of their pay was receiving consideration in May last, he can now say what decision he has arrived at in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The conclusion I have come to is that I am unable at present to take any steps for increasing the retired pay of these officers.

  Dockyard Accommodation Abroad.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that considerably increased accommodation has been and is being made in our dockyards abroad, under various Works Bills, while the fleets relying on them have been largely reduced; whether, under these circumstances, the Government will utilise the docks and plant in dockyards abroad by contracting for the repairs of British merchant ships; and whether, in cases where the coal accommodation is in excess of peace requirements, they will prevent deterioration by undertaking to supply British merchant vessels at trade prices.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative, and to the second and third parts in the negative.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    H.M.S. "Montagu."
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the expenses connected with the salvage operations of the "Montagu" have been charged to the account for repairs and refitting, and how much those salvage operations have approximately cost; and whether the repairs of other ships will be delayed from this cause.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE AD-MIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): The expenses have been brought to account under various heads according to the nature of the particular service; the principal item of the expense falls upon the sub-head which provides for such contingencies as well as for repairs of ships. The gross cost of the salvage operations is approximately £77,000, without taking into account the value of gear recovered. The answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.
    MR. J. WARD: I would like to ask the light hon. Gentleman whether the new tenant of Lundy Island has made a claim for damages in respect of the operations that have already been carried out.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No such claim has been brought to my notice.
    MR. JENKINSasked whether the £77,000 included the cost of the warships that attended the operations.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Yes, the aggregate or the whole cost is £77,000.
    MR. PELLsuggested that it would be better to keep the repairs account entirely distinct from the other expenses.

    Foreign Navies.
    MB. MITCHELL-THOMSON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what was the number of battleships building in France and Germany, or sanctioned by the respective Parliaments of those countries, on 30th November, 1905, the date of the issue of the Cawdor Memorandum.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I am informed that on the date mentioned there were six battleships building in Germany, and eighteen more had been sanctioned by Fleet Bill to be laid down by 1917; and in Prance there were six battleships building and three more sanctioned.

    The Channel Fleet.
    MR. DOBSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether an order has been issued by the Admiral of the Channel Fleet that Christmas be spent on the Spanish coast; whether he is aware that this will be the second year in succession that the fleets have spent their Christmas away from home; whether this privation to the crews can be altered without detriment to the Navy; and whether, seeing that last year seven days leave was given before leaving, he will say if this year only four days are to be granted.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I have nothing to add to my printed reply to a similar Question from the hon. Member for Devonport, circulated with the Papers on Wednesday. †

    The Portsmouth Disturbances.
    MR. MACPHERSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the lieutenant concerned in the recent alleged mutiny of stokers at the Royal Naval Barracks, Portsmouth, had been previously removed from another depot owing to the feeling caused amongst this class of men by his ordering them to go down on the knee.
    I beg also to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he has any official reports, showing that on Thursday, 1st November, Lieutenant Collard, after putting a certain number of stokers in His Majesty's Navy through their drill, at the Royal Naval Barracks, Portsmouth, dismissed them with the exception of sections one and three; that these men were then ordered to go down on the knee and were kept there for about ten minutes; that these two sections were then marched into the centre of the parade ground and Lieutenant Collard addressing them said that in future if they did not do as they were told they would get more knee drill; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I can only refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 14th
    † See Col. 597–8.

    993
    November, to the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs; † and I must appeal to the hon. Member not to press me to make any statement which must tend to prejudice the proceedings of the court martial.

    "Serving Afloat."
    Ms. F. E. SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now state whether the expression "serving afloat" used in the recent Admiralty Memorandum is to be understood in the ordinary sense of the word, as meaning men serving afloat in ships at sea or is intended to include men serving on ships at anchor in the naval ports and in the dockyard basins.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I have nothing to add to my answer to a similar Question asked by the hon. Member for Croydon on 7th November.‡

    British Settlers in South Africa.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state the number of British settlers who have taken up land in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony under the Land Settlement Ordinances; and what percentage of these are ex-troopers who served with the British colours in the late war.
    THE-UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): In the Transvaal the number of settlers is 588, of whom 418 took part in the late war. In the Orange River Colony there are 627 British heads of families, 90 per cent. of whom served in the war.

    Cotton Cultivation in Australia.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Government have any information in reference to cotton growing experiments in Australia; and whether any encouragement will be
    † See (4) Debates, clxiv., 1483–4.
    ‡ See (4) Debates clxiv, 521.
    994
    given to such experiments, in view of the fact that the soil and climate in certain portions of Australia are suitable for cotton-growing.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I have no definite information on this subject, but I understand that the Commonwealth Government are considering the question of offering facilities for the encouragement of cottan-growing in Australia.

    British Indians at Vrederdorp.
    SIR H. COTTONI beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to Clauses 5, 8, and 9 of the Second Schedule of the Vrederdorp Stands Ordinance of 1906, under which the residence of British Indians, other than domestic servants, is prohibited within the area affected by the Ordinance; and whether, looking to the fact that the Ordinance does not come into effect until it has been assented to by the Crown, and that for several years past, both under the Boer Government and at present, British Indians have been allowed to occupy land within this area under grants given by the burghers of Vrederdorp, and are still residing within this area and have erected substantial structures thereon, the Secretary of State will advise His Majesty to disallow this Ordinance.
    MR. CHURCHILL: My attention has been drawn to the provisions referred to. This land was originally granted to poor burghers—that is, to white men only, and on condition of personal occupation. The Ordinance, therefore, merely perpetuates the legal conditions which were in existence before annexation and in defiance of which certain Indians have, I understand, acquired some stands and erected tin shanties. I may add that it is very desirable to keep the white and coloured quarters apart, as the practice of allowing European, Asiatic, and native families to live side by side in mixed communities is fraught with many evils, and is, in Lord Selborne's opinion, injurious to the social well-being of all three. The whole question is, however, still under consideration.

    Chinese in British Columbia.
    MR. BOULTON: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies if a celibate camp of 16,000 Chinese exists in British Columbia, or has existed since the country was a British Colony; and, if so, whether the Chinese in such camp are free 1o come and go like any ordinary inhabitant within the Empire, and if there are any restrictions upon the movements of the Chinese in Canada other than such as are imposed by the ordinary law upon all citizens; whether a poll tax of £100 is imposed upon every Chinaman entering Canada, and whether this has the effect of excluding the more undesirable class of Chinese from the country; whether, apart from the poll tax, there is any law in Canada under which Chinese are treated in a different way from the other inhabitants of the Dominion.
    I beg further to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Royal Commission on Chinese Immigration into British Columbia reported unfavourably towards such immigration, and if the Report made any reference to the value of Chinese labour in the mines and other industries of the country, and the effect such labour would have upon the social condition of the people and the development of the industrial life of the province; and what steps, if any, have been taken by the Canadian Government to give effect to the recommendations in the Report.
    MR. CHURCHILL: According to the last census and other returns, there are about 16,000 Chinese in British Columbia. They do not live in a celibate camp, but are scattered over various parts of the province. I am not aware that they are subject to any special restrictions in Canada, but there is a capitation tax on every Chinese immigrant, which was, in 1903, raised from 100 to 500 dollars, in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission referred to by the hon. Member, but I have no definite information as to the effect of this increase in the capitation tax. The Report of the Committee, which very fully discussed the social and economic effects of Chinese immigration,
    996
    recommended the total prohibition of further immigration if practicable, and that in the meantime the capitation tax should be raised to 500 dollars.

    Orange River Colony and the War Debt.
    MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if Ordinance 36 of 1903 renders the Orange River Colony liable to pay £5,000,000 towards our war debt; and, if so, whether this obligation will stand part of the proposed constitution for the Orange River Colony.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. His Majesty's Government are not prepared to disclose piecemeal their policy in regard to the Orange River Colony Constitution, shortly to be announced to Parliament.

    Repatriation of Chinese Coolies.
    MR. FULLERTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether immediate action will be taken to repatriate Chinese coolies employed in all mines where, according to Mr. Bucknill's Report, unnatural vice has prevailed.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I have nothing to add to the statements of Government policy made to both Houses of Parliament last week, except that that policy is being energetically pursued.

    Lord Selborne.
    MR. FULLERTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is intended to recall Lord Selborne from South Africa in consequence of his failing to keep the Government informed as to the social and moral condition of the coolies employed in the Chinese compounds.
    MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. Lord Selborne has in no way failed in his duty and, as already stated by the Secretary of State, there is no divergence in the standard of duty between His Majesty's Government and the High Commissioner, i.e., to stamp out the evil whenever and wherever it is found.

    The Fereira Raid.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Lord Elgin will make representations to the Cape Government, similar to the representations made by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, when Colonial Secretary, to the Government of the South African Republic after the Jameson Raid of 1895, urging that clemency should be extended to Fereira after participating in the raid on the Cape Colony of which he was a leader; and whether Lord Elgin will instruct Lord Selborne to use his best offices with the Prime Minister of Cape Colony to secure an amnesty to these offenders.
    MR. GHURCHILL: No, sir.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL; Why not? Why should such an Answer be given, having regard to what occurred in connection with the Jameson Raid?
    MR. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member asked me as to a question of fact, and I answered him. If he wants the reasoning on which the decision was arrived at, perhaps he will give notice of another Question?
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I will, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will be more expansive next time.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Lord Elgin will consider the propriety of representing to the Cape Government the advisability of appointing a committee of inquiry into the circumstances of the recent raid in Cape Colony, with power to enter into a searching investigation of the causes which led to the raid, and to report whether the raiders were solely responsible for that deplorable incident or were the agents of others.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State sees no ground for making any such suggestion to the Cape Government.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Did not the hon. Gentleman hear the statement in this House that this raid was organised
    998
    for the purpose of distracting attention from the Chinese labour question.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I have heard such statements, but the hon. Member is too shrewd to attach any importance to them.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Oh, I'm a simple-minded man!

    British Indian at Volksrust.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has seen the Report of an appeal, heard this month, by the Supreme Court of the Transvaal, in the matter of Rex v Mahomed Hafeejee Moosa, wherein a British Indian lad, under eleven years of age, living with his father, was arrested and charged before the magistrate at Volksrust, found guilty, sentenced to pay a fine of £50 or to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months, and to leave the Transvaal after the completion of his term of imprisonment or payment of fine as the case might be; whether he is aware that the Supreme Court has quashed the conviction, and made certain comments upon the administration of the Peace Preservation Ordinance regarding the British Indians; and whether the Colonial Office proposes to take action upon the said judgment.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The case in question came before the Supreme Court on appeal from the assistant resident magistrate at Volksrust. The Government did not oppose the appeal, and had remitted the sentence before the appeal was heard. The comments of the chief justice appear to have applied to the action of the assistant resident magistrate and that action was practically repudiated by the Transvaal Government. No action on the part of the Secretary of State appears to be necessary.

    Tilonko's Appeal.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the attention of the Government has been directed to a recent judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, refusing an appeal to the Natal chief,

    999
    Tilonko, from a court-martial trial in Natal, upon the ground that the Natal Legislature had passed an Act of Indemnity validating the sentences of all illegal courts set up by the Governor of Natal and the Commandant of Militia under martial law; whether he is aware that the Indemnity Act passed the Legislative Assembly of Natal on the 7th July last and the Legislative Council on the 12th July last, that the trial of Tilonko did not take place until the 30th July last, and that, before the sentence of ten years imprisonment with hard labour and a fine of 500 head of cattle was imposed, the Parliament of Natal had been dissolved; whether, having regard to the fact that the proceedings of the trial by court-martial were rendered by anticipation valid by an Indemnity Act previously passed, His Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table the correspondence that took place between the Governor and the Secretary of State for the Colonies relative to the Royal Assent to the Indemnity Act and its promulgation in the Natal Government, Gazette on the 2nd October last, the petitions, if any, presented to His Majesty in Council praying the disallowance of the Act, and a reference to the Judicial Committee for hearing or consideration of the matters referred to in the petitions, and a statement of the advice of the Secretary of State to the Crown in dealing with the petitions; and will the Government advise the Crown, under the provisions of Section 7 of the Natal Constitution Act, 1893, and Section 4 of the Imperial Statute 3 and 4 Will. 4, c. 41, to refer the petitions in question to the Judicial Committee for inquiry and advice.
    MR. CHURCHILL: It is not proposed to lay the petitions in question. The correspondence between the Governor and the Secretary of State will be published in a further Blue-book on Natal affairs, which will be laid immediately. The Secretary of State cannot properly advise the King to refer the petitions in question to his Council in view of the fact, first, that their object appears to be to obtain by indirect means a rehearing of a matter which has already been judicially decided, and secondly the consideration by the Judicial Committee of a point on
    1000
    which the Secretary of State has already advised His Majesty.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Having regard to the unusual circumstances, will the Secretary of State consider the propriety of allowing the whole matter to be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I have already answered the Question. I am sorry the hon. Member is not satisfied.

    Explosives in the Suez Canal.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that up to the time of the foundering in the Suez Canal of the s.s. "Chatham," laden with dynamite, no regulations whatever existed for ensuring precautions in cases of ships passing through the canal carrying explosives; whether any regulations with that object have since been put in force; and, if so, whether he will ay upon the Table of the House a copy of such regulations.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): His Majesty's Government are, of course, not responsible for the regulations of the Suez Canal Company. I am informed that steamers carrying explosives are not prohibited from passing through the Suez Canal, but that the Company reserves the right to take such precautions as are usual in all ports. The authorities take no action unless their attention is drawn to a particular ship as having explosives in her cargo. Such vessels may be berthed at special points and when under transit must fly a special signal both by day and by night, similar to that shown by petroleum tank steamers. It is obvious that it is to the interest of the Company to take every precaution against danger to life and property from any source during the navigation of the canal, and the officials have full powers to give directions with this object.

    The United States and the Congo.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the

    1001
    Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have been made aware that the United States Government are prepared and are anxious to co-operate in action against the abuses of Congo misgovernment, and to be represented in any conference which may be called upon the subject.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: No such communication has hitherto reached His Majesty's Government from the Government of the United States.

    Uruguayan Fisheries.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary "of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have received any representations from the Canadian Government on behalf of the captain and crew of the "Gertrude," which is detained at Monte Video on a charge of illegal sealing; whether the captain and crew are imprisoned there; whether he is aware that in the case of the "Agnes" the captain and crew were detained in prison for some weeks and finally released on the ground that there was no law prohibiting fishing in Uruguayan waters; whether any such law has since been passed; and, if not, whether he will instruct His Britannic Majesty's representative in Uruguay to use every effort to secure the immediate release of the captain and crew of the "Gertrude."
    SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Government have received information that four British subjects, sealers of the Canadian schooner "Alice Gertrude," have been arested by the Uruguayan authorities at Rocha on a charge of illicit sealing, and we are in communication with the Canadian Government in regard to the matter. It is true that, in the case of the "Agnes G. Donahoe," the master and crew were detained in prison for some weeks and finally released, but it was on the expiration of their sentence, and not on the ground that there was no law prohibiting fishing in Uruguayan waters. There was not at that time, nor is there, so far as His Majesty's Government are aware, any such law in Uruguay. His Majesty's Minister at Monte Video, who is watch-
    1002
    ing the case carefully, has just reported that the Judge has decided on purely technical grounds that he had no jurisdiction, and that the prisoners should be sent back for trial to Rocha. Every endeavour will be made to secure that they are properly defended.

    Ministry of Education in Egypt.
    MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will obtain information for the House as to the circumstances in which Yakoub Artin Pasha has retired from the post of Under-Secretary of State for Education in the Egyptian Government, and the newly created office of Secretary of State for Education has been assigned to one of the Judges in the Native Court of Appeal; whether Artin Pasha had been promised advancement to the new post on its creation, in consideration of his great and repeatedly recognised services in promoting educational reforms; and whether the official appointed is without any experience in the work of the Department.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: It is regretted that Yakoub Artin Pasha has considered it necessary to resign. But I cannot admit that he has any grievance against the Egyptian Government. The appointment of Zagloul Boy as Minister of Public Instruction has been received with great pleasure and approval by all classes of Egyptian society. There is apparently every prospect that it will inspire confidence in the conduct of this Department in Egypt, and his personal qualifications for the post are not unlike those which have more than once proved eminently satisfactory in the case of Ministers of Education in this country, who have seldom, if ever, been trained in the Department.

    The Denshawi Trials.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why a full Report of the evidence at the trial of the Denshawi prisoners and of everything that took place in connection with that trial has not been supplied to the House in accordance with the promise given by him on the 5th July last.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Report of the evidence at the trial is not official, but only a summary which was not read over to the witnesses or controlled by the Court. It is substantially the same as the Report of the evidence at the preliminary inquiry, which has been presented to Parliament, except in some unimportant details. It was not considered necessary to publish both accounts, and as the account of the evidence given at the preliminary inquiry was regarded as the more accurate of the two, it was decided that it should be published.
    MR. DILLONinquired if the Report did not show that the defence was not represented and that there was no cross-examination of any of the witnesses. This was not the Report that was promised.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Reports did not differ except in unimportant points.
    MR. DILLON: Can we have a copy of the evidence?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I am quite willing to place a copy of the evidence in the Library.

    Macedonia.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been directed to the fact that the condition of Macedonia is as bad as, if not worse than, it was four years ago, before the intervention of the European Powers; whether, as a matter of fact, the situation in that country is going from bad to worse; and whether His Majesty's Government can hold out any hope of effective means being taken to provide a remedy.
    MR. WEDGWOOD (Newcastle-under-Lyne): At the same time, may I ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government are now prepared, in view of the number of deaths by violence recorded by the British Consuls in Macedonia, to make a new effort, either by enlarging the
    1004
    powers of the Financial Commission or in other ways, to secure the reforms which are essential to the prevention of bloodshed.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I cannot admit that the reforms have done no good. But the condition of Macedonia is occupying the anxious consideration of His Majesty's Government, and they are endeavouring, in consultation with the other Powers, to render the reforms more effective.
    MR. LYNCHasked the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention had been called to the fact that the number of violent deaths in Macedonia had increased from 100 per month in 1905 to 150 per month in 1906; further, if his attention had been called to the fact that a number of violent deaths were credibly reported to have been due to Turkish troops, which Turkish troops it was proposed, with the consent of His Majesty's Government, to pay out of increased Customs duties to be levied on British trade.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I am afraid I must ask for notice of that Question; it would require a speech to answer it.

    Egypt.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his official information still shows that Egypt is in a dangerous and disturbed condition, and affected by a wave of fanaticism; and, if so, whether he will see that tourists proposing to spend the winter in that country are warned of the danger they may incur.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The situation in Egypt is not now giving rise to special anxiety, and there is no reason, and I trust will be none, to discourage people who wish to travel from doing so.
    MR. DILLONasked whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman had been drawn to the remarkable fact that fanaticism in Egypt disappeared when the tourist season commenced, and if that did not give him much food for reflection.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I cannot say that it gives me much food for reflection, but I do find in it matter for congratulation and satisfaction.

    British Shipping Claims against Russia.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs upon what date His Majesty's Government suggested arbitration at The Hague in respect of the "Knight Commander."
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The proposal was made in a note which, in pursuance of instructions, His Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg addressed to the Russian Government on the 19th of September last.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any claims of British shipowners, in respect of ships sunk, damaged or delayed by the Russian fleet or volunteer crusiers during the recent Russo-Japanese war, are still outstanding; and if he will give the names of the ships involved.
    MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS: At the same time I will ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make any statement as to the present state of negotiations with the Russian Government in reference to the matter of compensation to the owners of British ships sunk by Russian ships of war during the Russo-Japanese war.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I beg to refer the hon. Members to the Answer I gave on 17th May last, to the hon. Member for King's Lynn, in which I enumerated the eases which were then pending, † Since that date, in consequence of the Russian Government's having refused to reconsider the claim advanced on behalf of those concerned in the destruction of the "Knight Commander," His Majesty's Government have proposed, as the hon. Member is aware, that the case should be re-
    † See (4) Debates, clvii., 643.
    1006
    ferred to arbitration at The Hague. As regards the "Allanton," the Russian Government have also again refused to entertain the claim advanced for compensation in respect of the seizure and detention of that vessel, and after careful consideration with their legal advisers, His Majesty's Government have decided that there are insufficient grounds for further pressing the claim, and the partieis concerned have accordingly been so informed. In the ease of the "Cilurnum," the Prize Court at Libau on 22nd August last, decided that the jettisoning of some cargo she earned was in order, in consequence of its contraband character. The parties interested did not, however, enter an appearance at these proceedings, and have intimated that they do not desire to take any steps with a view to appealing against this decision. The remaining cases which I specified in May are either still forming the subject of correspondence between the two Governments, or are shortly expected to come before the Libau Prize Court.

    British Subjects in Tangier.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign affairs whether British subjects have acquired land in the town of Tangier or within a radius of ten kilometres of it since the signing of the Algeciras Convention; whether he has any official information to show that purchase of property in that district has lately become impossible owing to quarrels between local officials; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The situation as regards the acquisition of land in Morocco is not, so far, affected by the Algeciras Act, which does not come into operation until after its ratification by all the signatory Powers. His Majesty's Government have received no recent reports or complaints either from his Majesty's Legation or from any British subjects in Morocco in regard to difficulties in the way of the acquisition of land in the town and district of Tangier, and they do not propose to take any steps in the matter.

    Hayti.
    MR. GLENDINNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if a treaty has recently been been concluded between Great Britain and the Republic of Hayti by virtue of which all children born in Hayti of British parents are to be considered as Haytian subjects, and thus liable to arrest, imprisonment, and death for a political offence, real or supposed, at the hands of the Haytian Governments; if he is aware that such children, if white, cannot hold real property or be appointed to any government post, and, if a male, is liable to be called out for military service; and if he is aware that France absolutely refused to conclude a treaty with Hayti on the same lines.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Government concluded a Convention with the Haytian Government on 6th April last, regulating the national status of British subjects and Haytian citizens in the territories of either country. If the facts be as stated by the hon. Member, a certain hardship would, in the case of persons of British origin born in Hayti, appear to exist. His Majesty's Consul-General at Port-au-Prince has, therefore, been instructed to furnish a Report on the subject; upon the receipt of which the question of what, if any, action can be taken by His Majesty's Government in the matter will be considered. I have no information as to the statement contained in the last paragraph of the Question.

    Somaliland.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an agreement has been concluded with France and Italy with reference to the importation of arms and ammunition into Somaliland, and whether he can communicate the terms of any such understanding to the House.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: No agreement has been concluded.

    Newfoundland Modus Vivendi.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the enforcement of the provisions of the Bait Act by the Newfoundland Government against Colonial fishermen
    1008
    who enlist on American vessels involves a breach of the modus vivendi concluded with the American Government; whether the American Government have yet made any representations on the subject; and what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take in reference to the matter.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I am not prepared to say, on the information received, whether what has occurred is technically a breach of the modus vivendi, but its practical working has not hitherto been interfered with. The United States Government have made friendly representations in the matter, which is under consideration.
    MR. LYTTELTON: Is the right hon. Baronet aware that the Under-Secretary for the Colonies promised Papers on this matter at the beginning of last week. Can he say what is the reason for this prolonged delay?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I will inquire. I have not yet seen the Papers in proof. I understand that they are at the Colonial Office. I will have them issued as soon as possible.

    Robinson Mines—Recruiting Kaffirs.
    MR. MACKARNESS: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the delay on the part of the Portuguese Government in granting facilities to the Robinson Group of Mines for recruiting Kaffirs in Portuguese territory is caused by the opposition of the mine owners belonging to the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association; and, if so, what steps have been taken by His Majesty's Government to remove that opposition, and with what results.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I have represented strongly to the Portuguese Government the importance which we attach to this matter, but no satisfactory settlement of the point has yet been reached. The Portuguese Government state that it would be a breach of the arrangement made by their Governor with the Witwatersrand Association.

    Egyptian Reforms.
    MR. ALDENI beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make any statement relative to the various Egyptian reforms promised in Lord Cromer's last Diplomatic Report.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The progress which has been made in the various reforms in Egypt will no doubt be dealt with by Lord Cromer in his next annual Report, which will be laid before the House in due course. I have no statement to make at the present moment.
    SIR GILBERT PARKERAt what period of the year is the Report usually laid?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I cannot say, but if the hon. Member will look at the last Report that will aftord some guide.

    Concessions in the Congo Free State.
    MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information showing that concessions in the Congo Free State have recently been made to three American firms; and, if so, whether he is in a position to give any farther information on the subject.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty Government have received no official information on the subject, though statements to that effect have been made in the Press.

    Case of Frederick Rushton.
    MR. J. WARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Frederick Rushton, who, at the Staffordshire December assizes, 1902, was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to ten years penal servitude; whether the prisoner has complained that his brother, who was a material witness, was persuaded to absent himself from the trial; and whether, having regard to other circumstances and also the conduct of the prisoner since conviction, he will take into consideration the sentence with a view to an immediate release of this prisoner.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): This man was convicted in December 1901, not 1902. He has sent four petitions to the Home Office but in none has he spoken of any evidence that any brother of his could give. In the last petition, however, he spoke of a certain Nellie Rushton, who, he said, should have been called at the trial. The crime was a very grave one, and I regret that I can see no reason for interfering with the sentence. If, however, the prisoner's conduct in prison has been good, he will be entitled to a considerable remission under the prison rules.

    Case of William Maughan.
    MR. J. WARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has made inquiries into the committal, at Gateshead, of William Maughan, aged six, to an industrial or penal school for ten years; whether he can give the number of such similar committals of infants under six years of age throughout the kingdom last year, and say whether, in the case of William Maughan, it was a first offence, and if not, how many previous convictions had been recorded against him, and what was the nature of his offences; and whether the father is bound to pay 1s. 6d. per week for such detention; and, if so, whether, in view of the present wages of the father and the number of his family, he proposes to take any action in the matter.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have made inquiry into the case referred to. The number of children under six years of age committed to industrial schools in 1905 was seventy-five. Industrial schools are in no sense penal schools, and the boy Maughan was not convicted but committed to be brought up in the school because he was found begging in the streets and his home surroundings were of a very unsatisfactory nature. He had not been previously committed or convicted. The father was ordered to pay 1s. 6d. a week while the boy is in the school; he has the right to apply to the magistrates to reduce this sum if he desires to to do; and I cannot take any steps in

    1011
    the matter. The course adopted by the Court in committing the boy to the school was, I consider, in the boy's best interests, but I shall have periodical reports made to me upon the case.
    MR. J. WARD: Arising out of that Answer, I would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that at this Police Court in Gateshead during last year, although there were only seventy cases in the whole country since May last, parents have been proceeded against for arrears under similar orders where children have been kidnapped and have suffered imprisonment amounting in the aggregate to forty-five and a half months in one year.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I will consider the facts which the hon. Member has given me, but if he wishes to put a fresh Question perhaps he will give me notice.
    MR. J. WARD: I wish to ask whether during his investigation of this case the right hon. Gentleman has not become painfully aware that this appears to be a regular practice of this Court and probably there are more convictions of this description——
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, Order! The hon. Member ought to put that on Paper.
    MR. BOWLES: Is it a fact that parents can be and are sent to prison for failure to pay these fines running week by week, and may I ask whether the Tight hon. Gentleman is aware that at this particular Court parents were sent to prison at the rate of one per week in the last year.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am not aware of that particular practice at this Court. As to the general question of the hon. Member, that raises a question affecting industrial schools generally, and I cannot deal with it in the form of an Answer to a Question.
    LORD ROBERT CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman has not said whether they can be and are sent to prison for not paying these arrears.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I believe that is so.
    MR. J. WARD: I wish to ask whether it is possible for magistrates to send a boy —a baby of six years of age—to a reformatory for ten years with no convction whatever against him.
    MR. GLADSTONE: That is a question arising under the Act. I am not prepared to say that the Act in every respect is perfect. It is true that this boy had committed no offence, but I take it that the action of the Court was in the direct interest of the boy, because his whole surroundings were distinctly unsatisfactory and he had been sent out by his father to beg in the streets.
    MR. BOWLES: What was the charge against this unfortunate parent on which he was deprived of his child for ten years?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have not the terms of the charge in my mind. I think there is a misapprehension in the minds of some Members. This case was an industrial case and not a reformatory case.

    Cardiff Assistant Inspector of Mines.
    MR. BRACE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Mr. John Masterton, Longrigg schoolhouse, Scotland has been appointed as an assistant inspector of mines for the Cardiff district; and, if so, does Mr. Masterton speak the Welsh language, as a majority of miners employed within the area of the Cardiff district are Welsh speaking miners.
    COLONEL HERBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Mr. John Masterton, of Longriggend, Scotland, who has been appointed assistant inspector of mines for the Cardiff district of South Wales, has any knowledge of the Welsh language; whether he has any practical experience of coal mining in the South Wales coalfield; whether he will state the number of candidates for the appointment who possess both the above qualifications; and whether, having regard to the fact that Welsh is the only language spoken by a considerable number

    1013
    of the miners in the Cardiff district, he will reconsider his decision in regard to this appointment.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The gentleman named in the Questions was first in the recent competitive examination for two vacancies in the inspectorate, but, as I have already informed my hon. friend the Member for Rhondda, the question who is to be assigned to fill the vacancy in the Cardiff district is still under my consideration. In any case he will be a Welsh-speaking inspector.

    Collapse of Houses at Marylebone,
    MR. STRAUS: I beg to ask the Home Secretary if he is aware of the fact that two houses in Molyneux Street, Marylebone, collapsed at 2 o'clock this morning, and that a woman was sleeping on the premises at the time of the accident; are the police taking any steps to rescue her dead or alive, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at 11 o'clock no effort had, apparently, been made to do so; also can the right hon. Gentleman say how the catastrophe occurred.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I regret to say that it is the case that two houses have collapsed in Molyneux Street. The necessary steps are being taken to recover the body of the woman supposed to be buried there.

    Burial Boards.
    MR. ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the decisions of the Courts in Wilson v. Wallasey Urban District Council, and Godden v. Hythe Burial Board respectively; and, if so, will the Government promote legislation at an early date to relieve the burial authorities of the country from the position in which they are placed by the above decisions.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS, Battersea): The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this Question. As I stated on Monday last, in reply to my hon. friend the Member for the Tunbridge Division, this matter is receiving my attention.† I hope to be able
    † See Col. 405.
    1014
    to announce a decision with regard to it in a few days.
    MR. ROWLANDSasked whether, if it was necessary, the right hon. Gentleman would consider the introduction of legislation.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: It cannot be done without legislation, and I am at present engaged in considering the actual form which that legislation should take.
    MR. MARNHAM: May I ask if it is not the fact that the result of this decision is to render useless a considerable portion of a large number of cemeteries, causing great loss to the ratepayers?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: The statement made by the hon. Member is perfectly correct, and that is the reason why I have given the subject immediate attention.
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: Will it be possible to introduce legislation this session, in view of the urgency of the matter?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: If I could receive a universal assurance of support, I would do it to-morrow night.

    Kirkby Stephen Medical Officer.
    MR. WARDLE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the action of the medical officer of health at Kirkby Stephen, who during July or August of this year sentenced a refractory pauper to one month's imprisonment, in his capacity as a county magistrate; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter in view of the dual position held by this medical officer of health.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I have no information as to this particular case, but I may say generally that, as a Medical Officer of Health is an officer of the county or district council and not of the board of guardians, it does not at present appear to me that there is any objection to his acting as a county magistrate in a case of the kind referred to in the Question.

    Deaths from Cancer.
    MR. STRAUS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can arrange that in future, when the Registrar-General issues his Report upon deaths and their causes, he will issue statistics showing the geographical distribution of deaths from cancer in the United Kingdom and in London, in order to assist in the discovery of the cause of this disease.
    MR. JOHN BURNS; My hon. friend will perhaps allow me to answer this Question. I think that so far as England and Wales are concerned, he will find the information he desires in the Reports of the Registrar-General at the present time. I would draw his attention to the Tables on pages 234 to 270 of the last of these Reports.

    Vaccination.
    MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the letter of Dr. John Tatham, published in the 67th Annual Report of the Registrar - General, in which Dr. Tatham repeats his request, often made before, that in the case of persons dying of smallpox there shall be a precise statement of the vaccinal condition of each person; and if, with a view to facilitating the granting of this request, he will in the case of each person dying of smallpox, cause the vaccination registers to be searched in order to assist in ascertaining the vaccinal condition of the deceased person.
    ME. JOHN BURNS: I have seen the passage in the Report of the Registrar-General referred to. In reply to a Question by my hon. friend on 14th June,† I pointed out the objections to a proposal that the vaccination registers should be examined in all cases of smallpox to ascertain the vaccinal conditions of the patients. Similar objections would apply to the present proposal, and I am afraid it must be regarded as impracticable.
    MR. LUPTON: In view of the importance of accurate statistics, and until
    † See (4) Debates, clviii., 1141.
    1016
    they are obtained, will the right hon. Gentleman stop selling this poisonous stuff?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    The Poplar Inquiry.
    VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the evidence in the Report of the Chief Inspector of the Local Government Board on the Poplar Union, that during the course of Jacob's evidence, the sections in the Public; Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889, referring to prosecution of persons engaged in the giving or taking of bribes were read, and it was demanded that Jacob's evidence should be communicated to the Attorney-General, with a view to the prosecution of the witness, that it was suggested that this was done to intimidate other contractors from giving evidence, and that subsequently to this, another contractor asked before giving evidence that he might be protected; and whether, with a view to secure the satisfactory elucidation of all the facts at such inquiries he is prepared to introduce a short Bill to provide that evidence taken at the Local Government Board inquiries shall be on oath, and that a witness who answers truly all questions which he is required to answer shall be entitled to a certificate of indemnity.
    MR. JORN BURNS: I am aware of the portion of the Report to which the noble Lord refers. Inspectors of the Local Government Board are empowered now to take evidence on oath at their inquiries, and this course was adopted at the inquiry at Poplar. I will take note of the suggestion that power should be conferred on them to give certificates of indemnity, but I do not know that any substantial inconvenience has arisen from the fact that they do not now possess this power.
    VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a provision of this kind with regard to inquiries held under election petitions?
    ME. JOHN BURNS: Yes; but I do not think the two cases are parallel.
    MR. MAGVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman send to the guardians at Poplar a copy of the evidence with regard to the giving and taking of bribes as disclosed at the trial of the Maidstone election petition against the noble Lord?

    Meat Inspection in London.
    MR ALDEN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it would be possible by administrative changes to secure a uniform meat inspection for the whole of London; and, if not, whether he would be willing to introduce the necessary legislation with a view to this result.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: Probably legislation would be necessary to secure a complete system of uniform inspection. The matter is not being lost sight of, but it does not appear to be ripe for legislation at present.
    MR. ALDEN: While we are waiting for legislation will the right hon. Gentleman issue a circular on the lines of the tuberculous meat circular issued in 1891 to all sanitary authorities?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I am prepared to consider that suggestion, but meanwhile I should like my Public Health Regulations Bill to be passed before this session is over.

    Telegraph Messengers and Evening Schools.
    MR. WARDLE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if his Department encourage the telegraph messenger boys to attend evening schools at the expense of their parents; and whether he will consider the advisability of the Department contributing a portion or the whole of the fees, as is sometimes done in the police force.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): Telegraph messengers are encouraged to obtain such educational knowledge as may qualify them for superior appointments. As far as possible this knowledge is imparted at Post Office institutes, which are main-
    1018
    tained for the sole benefit, of the boys, and which provide for their intelligent amusement, as well as for their instruction, the expenses being defrayed partly by a Treasury grant, and partly by small subscriptions from the boys, while much voluntary service is given by members of the staff. The work of these institutes is highly beneficial to the messengers, and the possibility of extending their number is steadily kept In view. At present they exist at about thirty provincial towns, as well as in London.

    South Wexford Postal Arrangements.
    MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention his been called to complaints of the New Ross District Council, the magistrates assembled at petty sessions in Duncormack and in Killinick, as well as several country gentlemen, as to the inadequacy of the postal system in South Wexford; whether he is aware that a Dublin newspaper is not delivered until it is a day old, and a London evening newspaper until it is three days old; and whether, in view of the postal facilities offered by the new railway across South Wexford, he will order an inquiry into the South Wexford postal system with a view to giving a second delivery at Killinick, Bridgetown, Duncormack, Wellington Bridge, Carrig-in-Bannow, Ballycullane, Campill, and wherever it is possible to do so.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have called for a report on this subject, and I will communicate with the hon. Member after I have received it.

    Coats' Cotton.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Coats sewing cotton combine now sells only 130 yards of sewing cotton for the same price at which it used to sell 200 yards; that this alteration is not accounted for by increase in cost of production; and whether he can see his way, by legislation or otherwise, to protect the consumers of sewing cotton, who are mostly poor people.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,): I have no official information as to the prices charged at various times by J. P. Coats, Ltd., for their products or the causes of any changes which may have taken place. My hon. friend has already been informed that the Board of Trade are fully alive to the importance of these matters, but are not at present prepared to propose legislation.

    Wall Paper Combine.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the trust or combination known as the Wall Paper Manufacturers, Limited, which embraces nearly the whole of the wall paper manufacturers in the United Kingdom, has succeeded in arranging monopolistic agreements for a further period of eight years with the great majority of the wall paper dealers of the United Kingdom, with the result that they have a virtual monopoly which is practically untouched by the very small imports of wall papers; and whether he can see his way to take steps by legislation or otherwise to protect consumers from monopoly in this instance.
    MR. KEARLEY: We have no official information as to the agreements mentioned in the Question.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: Do the Board of Trade make it their business to inquire and keep records of these matters?
    MR. KEARLEY: We do keep records of the information which comes to us. In this case the hon. Member has open to him the same sources of information as we have.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: Will you grant a Select Committee to inquire into the matter?
    MR. KEARLEY: That Question should be addressed to my light hon. friend.

    Hours of Railway Servants.
    MR. WARDLE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the Returns obtained by his Department showing the number of excessive hours worked by trainmen on railways, he is satisfied that the powers now possessed by the Board are effective for the permanent and total abolition of this evil.
    MR. KEARLEY: The various Returns of hours of work which have been obtained under Section 4 of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1889, show a reduction in hours worked, but there is room for improvement, and the question how this can be best effected is receiving attention.

    North Glamorgan Official Receiver.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to transfer the office of the official receiver for North Glamorgan from Merthyr to Pontypridd; and, if so, can he state on what ground.
    MR. KEARLEY: On the appointment of a new official receiver to the North Glamorgan District, it is proposed to fix his office at Pontypridd, because it is considered that this town is the most convenient for a great majority of those who are concerned in the bankruptcies of the whole district. The three court towns which in future will-comprise the official receiver's district are Pontypridd, Merthyr Tydvil, and Aberdare, and the average annual numbers of the cases administered in them for the last five years were, at Pontypridd forty-six, at Merthyr Tydvil twenty-nine, and at Aberdare nineteen. Pontypridd, standing at an important railway junction, is more convenient of access from most parts of the district than Merthyr Tydvil, and from the large trading centres of Bristol, Cardiff, and Newport where many of the larger creditors in cases arising in these Courts carry on business.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)Is Brecon to be removed from the district
    MR. KEARLEY: I will inquire.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: What is the name of the new official?
    MR. KEARLEY: I cannot say.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Is it the case that the removal of the office really depends upon whether or not a Merthyr solicitor is appointed.
    MR. KEARLEY: I must ask for notice of that.

    Hull Crossing Signalmen.
    MR. HUDSON (Newcastle-on-Tyne): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the long hours worked by the gate signalmen at the St. George's Road and Hawthorne Avenue Level Crossings, Hull, on the North Eastern Railway; if he is aware that these men commence duty at 9.45 a.m. on Sundays and remain on duty until 6 a.m. on Mondays, a period of twenty hours and fifteen minutes, and then do five turns of 12-hour shifts and one of thirteen hours on night duty, making a total of ninety-three hours and fifteen minutes for the week on the main passenger line; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    MR. KEARLEY: I should be glad if the hon. Member would defer this Question for a week. The Board of Trade have not yet received the reply of the railway company with regard to this complaint.

    Surveyors of Taxes.
    MR. MYER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been drawn to the answer given by Sir Algernon West, K.C.B., the then Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, to Question No 20,739 of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments in 1888, in which he stated that surveyors of taxes deal with two-thirds of the cases that would be appeals, that he found there existed such confidence in surveyors of taxes that very nearly all the merchants in the large towns will go to the surveyors, produce all their books, and go through their accounts and express their desire to settle the assessment with them notwithstanding, as he said, the illegality of such proceed-
    1022
    ings, and that in fact assessments are settled in that way by surveyors of taxes instead of by commissioners; will he say whether the answer given by Sir Algernon West in 1888 represented the actual facts at that time; and if he is aware that the practice still exists, although it was then declared to be illegal.
    The following Questions also appeared on the Paper:—
    MR. MYER: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been drawn to the evidence given by Mr. Hewitt, K.C., Clerk to the Commissioners of the City of London, before the Income Tax Commission, 1904–5, Question 1,197, to the effect that taxpayers in the city of London usually rely on the surveyor of taxes and on him, and they often try to settle the matter with the surveyor; in a case where they cannot agree the papers go to him and he endeavours to assist a settlement, and no appeal is made to the commissioners in such cases; is he aware that the surveyors of taxes in undertaking this work are acting illegally; and can he explain the statement made by the Board of Inland Revenue through him and to this House that there is no foundation for the suggestion that surveyors of taxes are doing work which legally falls upon the commissioners for general purposes and their clerks.
    MR. MYER: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been drawn to the evidence given by the principal of the Repayment Department of Somerset House before the Income Tax Committee, 1904–5, when, in answer to Question 434, he said that the law required that persons should prove their title to exemptions or abatement before the district commissioner of taxes, but that in practice they do not require them to do that; the claimant sends his statement of total income to the surveyor of taxes, who, if satisfied, certifies that the person is entitled to exemption or abatement, as the case may be; and can he explain the statement made by the' Board of Inland Revenue that they know of no foundation for the suggestion that surveyors of taxes do work which legally should be done by commissioners.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,): I will take my hon. friend's three Questions together. It is difficult to answer highly argumentative Questions of this kind without a fuller explanation than can conveniently be given across the floor of the House, but if my hon. friend will communicate with me privately, I will explain the position to him.
    MR. MYER: I think it a most unsatisfactory reply. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the officials supply him with Answers which mislead the House?
    MR. MCKENNA: No, Sir.

    Barton Farm, Isle of Wight.
    MR. ROGERS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Barton Farm, Isle of Wight, containing 572 acres, the property of the Crown, is now being farmed by the Woods and Forests Commissioners themselves at a loss, for the year ending 31st March, 1905, of £1,086 0s. 7d., and for the year ending 31st March, 1906, at a loss of £876 17s. 10d.; what sum, if any, has to be added on account of rent in order to arrive at the full loss sustained by the Commissioners by farming this land themselves; and whether the Commissioners are taking any steps, by sub-division of this holding, to arrive at a more profitable method of dealing with the property.
    MR. MCKENNA: Barton Farm contains 768 acres. The cash expended in the two years referred to exceeded the cash received in those years by the amounts stated, but the value of the stock, etc., on the farm is considerable. No valuation for letting Barton Farm has been made and the rent cannot, therefore, be stated. The farm is intermixed with other parts of the Osborne property which are devoted to other Government purposes, and although the question has been examined, it has not been considered expedient to try to let the principal parts of the farm. Some outlying portions have been let, but it is doubtful if further land to any
    1024
    extent could be let with advantage while the farm is kept in hand.

    Burwell Crown Farm.
    MR. ROGERS: I beg to ask the Secrctary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the expenditure by the Woods and Forests Commissioners on the Crown farm at Burwell, Cambs., amounting to 917 acres, during the two years the farm was in hand was £12,381 2s., and the receipts £3,809 13s. 4d., showing a net loss of £8,571 8s. 8d.; how much of this loss is covered by the stock on the farm; and whether in their accounts showing expenditure and receipts the Commissioners have debited the farm with the rent of £700, or any proportion thereof, for which rent the land has lately been let for purposes of subdivision amongst small holders.
    MR. MCKENNA: I am informed that the cash expended and received respectively in the two years to 31st March 1906 was as stated in the Question. The difference is not a net loss, as the stock, etc., on the farm must be taken into account, though, as the valuations are made at 31st October (the end of the farming year) the value of the stock on 31st March cannot readily be stated. On the 31st October, 1905, however, the stock, etc., on the farm was estimated at £9,292, and to that date the farm showed a small surplus of £12 13s. without charging rent.

    Crown Agents Fees.
    MR. ROGERS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the age ntsto the Woods and Forests Commissioners receive as remuneration for management of their agricultural property a poundage on the rents collected, when the farms are let, and fixed fees for the management of each farm in hand, and in view of the fact that in the case of the 4,280 acres in hand during the year ending 31st March 1906 the expenditure exceeded the receipts, he will state what these fixed fees are, how they are arrived at, and whether the Commissioners are considering the substitution of a poundage on profits for fixed fees as remuneration

    1025
    for the management of those farms which are in hand.
    MR. MCKENNA: The fixed fees allowed to the agents in respect of farms in hand include their expenses. They are usually fixed with reference to the rent that may be expected and to the number of visits to the property that under ordinary circumstances are to be anticipated and the expenses entailed by such visits. The fees allowed are as follows:—

    £

    s.

    d.

    Burwell—917 acres

    62

    0

    0

    Barton farm—768 acres together with woodlands containing 345 acres and the charge of several miles of roads and sea wall, etc.

    150

    0

    0

    Neats Court (Isle of Sheppey) 1157½ acres

    49

    7

    0

    Potters Hill (Oxford) 490½ acres

    52

    0

    0

    Shimpling (Suffolk) 572 acres

    45

    0

    0

    Land at Wingland (Lincolnshire) 357 acres

    36

    0

    0

    £394

    7

    0

    The question of the remuneration of the agents on the profits has been considered, but it has not been held to be practicable or desirable to adopt such a system.

    Unlet Crown Farms.
    MR. ROGERS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that several farms in different counties, amounting in all to 4,280 acres, the property of the Crown, and under the control of the Woods and Forests Commissioners, were during the year ending 31st March, 1906, unlet for lack of tenants, and being farmed by the Commissioners at a net loss to them of £940 lls. 6d.,; what sum, if any, on account of rent has to be added in order to arrive at the full loss to the Commissioners occasioned by their agricultural operations; and whether the question of sub-division and adaptation of these farms in order to meet the demand of the more numerous class of tenants who possess small capitals is under the consideration of the Commissioners.
    MR. McKENNA: I am informed that in the year ended 31st March, 19Q6, the cash expended on the unlet farms in question exceeded the cash received by the amount stated, but that is not a net loss, as the stock, etc., on the farms were of considerable value. The farming year is taken as ending on the 31st October, and the valuations of stock, etc., on the farms are made then. At the 31st October 1905, the estimated values of the stock, etc., on the farms amounted to £29,867 and the accounts to that date showed an estimated total surplus of £12,922 8s. 8d. for the total periods during which the several farms had been in hand without charging rent. No estimate has been made of the rent. The best method of finding tenants is constantly under consideration and two of the farms referred to in the Question have recently been let.

    State Banking Company, of Liverpool.
    MR. WARDLE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General if his attention has been called to the affairs of the State Banking Company, Limited, of Liverpool, and to the Report of the Official Receiver, No. 9,732, in the Chancery of the County Palatine of Lancaster (Liverpool District); and, if so, whether he will direct the public prosecutor to ta e action at once against the promoters of the company in question.
    THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON,): The matter is under inquiry.

    The Bucknill Report.
    MR. RAWLINSON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General if his attention has been called to the recent publication in certain newspapers of extracts from a confidential document dealing with crime among Chinese coolies in South Africa; and what steps have been taken to bring the offenders to justice under Section 2 (1) of 52 and 53 Vict., c. 52 (Official Secrets) Act.
    SIR JOHN WALTON: I think this Question was answered by the Prime Minister yesterday.
    LORD R. CECIL: Have any steps been taken in the way of communicating with the police?
    SIR JOHN WALTON: Not that I am aware of.
    LORD R. CECIL: Why not?
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: Did not the Prime Minister say yesterday that he could not yet give any reply on the subject.
    SIR JOHN WALTON: Hon. Members opposite have a simple course they can take. If they think the law has been broken they can draw the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions to any materials the have, and he will consider them, and communicate his opinion on the matter.
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: Would it not be advisable to give us those materials?
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Does the Attorney-General suggest that when an official secret has leaked out it is not the duty of representatives of the Government, but of some private Member, to take the matter up?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Barlinnie Gaol.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will grant the Return relating to number of prisoners transferred from Barlinnie to Perth during the past three years.†
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR, Forfarshire): There is no objection.

    Stationery Contracts in Ireland.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that an Irish firm on 6th October last estimated for the
    †Return showing (1) number of prisoners transferred from Barlinnie Prison to Perth Prison during the past three years; (2) length of original sentence on each of the above prisoners; (3) length of sentence still to run at the date of transfer.
    1028
    printing of 500,000 pamphlets in connection with His Majesty's Stationery Department; that owing to their having to add £50 for carriage over and above the cost of executing the work they were unable to compete successfully with firms having no carriage to pay; and whether, in view of this fact, he-will consider the advisability of removing this block.
    MR. MCKENNA: The disadvantages, of which the hon. Member complains, operate in the case of all contractors whose establishments are situated at a distance from the locality wherein the contract must be carried out, and they are not confined to the supply of stationery. I do not think that the Government could undertake to compensate a. particular firm for any disadvantage arising from increased cost of carriage of goods owing to the place at which the firm carries on its business.
    MR. SLOAN: Is it not a farce asking them to estimate knowing they cannot compete successfully?
    MR. MCKENNA: But they do compete successfully.

    Ireland and the Unemployed Grant.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the provision of £200,000, made in the Supplementary Estimates of the present session for the purposes of the Unemployed Workmen Act, has been allocated by the Treasury between England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland; and if so what is the amount of Ireland's share of this grant.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this Question. The allocation of the grant between the three countries has not at present been made. Negotiations are going on between myself and my right hon. friends the Secretary for Scotland and the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant on the subject, and I hope that the share of Ireland will very shortly be settled.
    MR. LONSDALE: Will the right hon.. Gentleman take care that Ireland gets its full share?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I think we may safely leave It to the Irish Members to see to that.

    Armagh Election.
    MR. GLENDINNING: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the sub-postmaster at Loughgall, county Armagh, headed a number of Mr. Moore's supporters and chased Mr Lindsay Crawford's agents and supporters out of Loughgall village; is he aware that the sub postmaster took an unusually active and prominent part in the formation of Mr. Moore's candidature; has any complaint been made against him; and what steps does the Postmaster-General intend to take in this matter.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIGWill the hon. Gentleman defer his Answer until the hon. Member has taken his seat as he may have some valuable supplementary Questions to put?
    MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member is under the Gallery with a blackthorn?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I can answer you without the assistance of my hon. friend, whether sworn or unsworn. I received on the 15th a telegram from Mr. Lindsay Crawford making certain allegations against the sub-postmaster of Loughgall in reference to his conduct at the election. I at once called for a report and I understand that he did not interfere in any way in the election. On one occasion however he properly declined to allow Mr, Crawford's canvassers to deliver an address in the Post Office. If the hon. Member has any evidence on the subject which he desires to put before me I shall of course make further inquiry.

    Return of Landowners.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister, whether, in view of the importance of the subject, he will grant the Return of Landowners of the United Kingdom, in continuance of that published in 1878.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN): No, sir, I am afraid I cannot recommend the granting of of this Return. I am informed that it would take a very considerable time to prepare and that it would cost at least £20,000. As at present advised I do not think that we should be justified in incurring this expenditure.
    LORD BALCARRES: May I ask whether it is possible for the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision in view of the fact that the Government is going to spend £60,000 on a Periodical Census of Production Bill?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The fact that we are going to spend a great deal of money on one thing does not seem to me a reason for spending a great deal on another.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: Surely the Return would be very useful in view of the fact that the Government contemplate important land legislation.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We already have plenty of information.

    Bates on Unimproved Land Values.
    MR. SNOWDEN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister, whether he has seen the Report of Mr. P. Heyes, Commissioner of Taxes for New Zealand in which he states that the effect of basing rates on the unimproved land value has been greatly to stimulate the building trade in that Colony by forcing land to be put to the best use; and whether, in view of the depressed state of the building trade in this country, he will introduce legislation here on similar lines at an early date.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes, Sir, the Report has been brought to my notice and I quite appreciate its importance, but all I can say at the moment is that the whole question is being carefully considered by the Government.

    International Exhibition.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he will cause to be included in the subjects to be brought by the

    1031
    Government before the Colonial Conference the question of the great International Exhibition which it is suggested could, with benefit to the empire, be held in London within the next few years, so that he may be able to learn the views of the Colonies on the matter and the share which they would respectively be prepared to take in it.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, sir, I am not in a position to say anything about this matter, and I have no information about the Exhibition which the hon. Gentleman mentions.

    Shropshire Magistracy.
    MR. HENRYI beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in spite of the disproportion between the Liberal and Unionist county magistrates in the county of Shropshire at the end of last year, of fifteen county magistrates recently appointed by the Lord Chancellor eight are recognised as adherents to the Unionist Party; and whether he will recommend a more effective remedy to an evil which the Lord Chancellor has admitted causes a legitimate sense of injustice than by accentuating the preponderance of Unionist county magistrates.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not aware that eight of the gentlemen referred to are Unionists. The Lord Chancellor carefully considered the names suggested to him by the hon. Member, and of those who were willing to accept the position, all who in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor were suitable have been placed on the Bench. The latter part of this question is argumentative. The existing disparity is a real evil, but it is not to be remedied by the appointment of gentlemen who are not suitable, and that may be the case without the least reflection on the personal character of the individual. The Lord Chancellor's difficult duty is to judge of this for himself, and he discharges it to the best of his ability.
    MR. LUPTON: How is it possible for the Lord Chancellor himself to judge the
    1032
    characters of the 5,000 gentlemen who are required as magistrates in this country?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Sir Henry MacCallum.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether Sir Henry MacCallum, who succeeded Sir W. F. Hutchinson as Governor of Natal in January, 1901, and arrived in that Colony on lath May, 1001, has already exceeded by several months in his tenure of this appointment the usual term of the holding of a Colonial Governor which is for a period of five years; on what ground has Sir Henry MacCallum's term of office as Governor of Natal been extended, and on whose application; on what conditions was this favour granted to him by the present Government; and whether, having regard to the disturbed condition of Natal during his Governorship, the insults offered by him to the Boer leaders during the negotiations which preceded the peace, and the severity in administration of the martial law regime which have characterized his Governorship of Natal, steps will be taken to bring his official connection with Natal to a termination.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: My hon. friend must have been misinformed. Sir Henry MacCullum was appointed for the usual term of six years which does not expire until May of next year.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is not the usual term five years—it was so in Jamaica?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: In Natal I am told it has always been six years.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Having regard to the statements in this Question which have not been denied, would it rot be well to curtail Sir Henry MacCallum's term?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have not dealt with the reflection on Sir Henry—I have only answered as to the term of his appointment.

    The Income-Tax Committee.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHasked the Prime Minister whether he was aware that statements had appeared in the Press purporting to give the recommendations of the Committee on Income-tax, whether the Report had yet been hid on the Table of the House, and whether steps would be taken to prevent such premature disclosures.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The report of the Committee has not yet been issued, but I believe certain statements, some quite inaccurate, have been published on the subject. The only method of preventing such premature disclosure rests with members of the Committee—of whom I believe my right hon. friend was one—and no doubt they will take notice of the Question. I do not know that I can do anything.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHassured the right hon. Gentleman that he had made no disclosure.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOONasked when the Papers on the Berlin Conference regarding wirelesss telegraphy would be ready, and when the promised debate would be taken.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he was afraid, after what had occurred, that he could not make any promise as to a date for discussion. He believed the Report of the Conference was in the hands of the printers, and as soon as it was issued to Members he hoped to say something as to an opportunity for discussion.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASasked as to the business for next week.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the business on Monday would begin with a Motion for determining the length of the Report stage of the Plural Voting Bill, to be followed by that stage of the Bill, which he hoped would be brought to a conclusion by Wednesday night.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAShoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider how much the Bill would be changed by the Amendments given notice of by the First Commissioner of Works, which Amendments contained 125 lines of new matter.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Every line of which new matter was put down to meet the wishes of right hon, Gentlemen opposite.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEasked what business would be taken on Thursday.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Here again I hesitate to make a statement which may lay me open to remarks about "trifling with the House," "proceedings under false pretences," and such like phrases; but I hope—I will go so far as to say I hope—we may begin the consideration of the Workmen's Compensation Bill.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  William Moore, esquire, K.C., for the County of Armagh (North Armagh Division).

  MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed,. "That this Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  MR. DAVID MACIVERwho had given notice of his intention to move that this Bill be read a third time this day three months, said that nothing was further from his desire than that by the rejection of the Bill they should nullify the fruits and labours of the Select Committee of 1904–5. But if this Bill were rejected now the result must be that they would have a better Bill in the next session of Parliament more completely carrying out the recommendations of that Committee. That Committee was a very strong Committee. It had not merely the advantage of being presided over by his hon. friend the Member for Dulwich, but it had the advantage of the expert

  1035
  assistance of Mr. Charles McArthur who was at that time member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool, and whose absence from the House all old Members on whichever side they sat would regret. The evidence placed before the Committee was of such a character that it left no kind of doubt that British shipping had been in the past and was to-day grievously handicapped in competition with foreign shipping. The Committee arrived unanimously at the conclusion that the law was in such a condition that it should be thoroughly altered, putting British and foreign shipping on equal terms. And in so far as this measure was based on the recommendations of that Committee, in so far as it went in the direction of placing British shipping and foreign shipping on equal terms, he was heartily in accord with it. But the Bill like other measures that had come before the House did not correspond with the memorandum attached to it. It did not as other Bills sometimes did not really and truly do what it was intended to do. His desire was to support everything in the Bill which tended towards placing British shipping and foreign shipping on equal terms. His complaint was that it did so only to a limited extent. If this Bill became law in its present shape, they would be told next year that the circumstances had been fully considered, and that all the reasonable demands of British shipowners had been met. They were not met by this Bill. They were only partially met. He wished to bear his individual testimony to the good work of his right hon friend the President of the Board of Trade. They had in him a gentleman who had really done his best to obtain information, and who endeavoured to understand his business. The subject was entirely new to him, and he had brought to it a fresh mind and great ability, and had done his best to do right and to be fair. But he had not heard from the right hon. Gentleman any acknowledgment of the labours of the Committee of 1904–5, over which his hon friend the Member for Dulwich presided, although it seemed to him that everything that was good in this Bill was the result find the fruits of the labours of that Committee. The Committee was in no
  1036
  sense a party Committee nor was this Bill in any sense a Party measure. The Committee took evidence carefully, and came to very clear conclusions and, in so far as this Bill carried out the conclusions of that Committee, he was heartily and absolutely in accord with it. But let them take the declared purpose of the very first clause of the Bill, "The application of British load-line provisions to foreign ships." Any no technical reader who took up the Bill, and even those who ought to understand it, when they came to this clause, would find that it largely spoke by reference and inference, and he did not suppose there were half a dozen hon. Members in the House who by reading the clause would ascertain what it actually meant. On the margin were the words—
  "The application of British load-line provisions to foreign ships."
  But upon reading the clause itself it seemed to him that it did not apply the British load-line to foreign ships That, no doubt, was approximately the result so far as outward-bound vessels were concerned; but only so far as outward vessels wore concerned. As regards homeward bound vessels he had some recollection of a bogey being raised by the Solicitor-General with regard to retaliation and the action that would be taken by foreign governments if we treated foreign vessels which arrived at our ports in the same way as we treated British vessels. He regretted that on that occasion he had been somewhat rude to the hon. and learned Gentleman. But though he might regret the actual words he used, and which he was afraid had not been very polite, that regret did not extend to the sense which he desired to convey, which was that, however great a lawyer the hon. and learned Gentleman might be, he knew nothing whatever about shipping management; and that these matters which seemed so difficult to the hon. and learned Gentleman were very easily dealt with by shipping people. He would go further and say that had the matter been left in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, a perfectly satisfactory solution would have been arrived at. There was no real

  1037
  difficulty in treating foreign ships in a similar manner to that in which we treated our own. The Board of Trade had only to issue an Order in Council, modifying the load line generally in regard to arrivals, which would put foreign steamers practically under the same conditions as British. It ought to be made illegal for any steamer to arrive with her deep load line awash. If a British steamer arrived in a condition which showed that she must have been over laden during the voyage she was put under penalties. If a foreign ship arrived in a similar condition she suffered no penalties at all. Then there was the question of bunker coal. A British ship was handicapped to the extent of the quantity of coal she consumed during the voyage, which might be a matter of several hundred tons. The foreign ship was under no such restriction, and might carry her bunker coal for the voyage in addition to her cargo. There would be no difficulty in putting this matter right in a future Bill without the slightest chance of raising any international complications. All the President of the Board of Trade would have to do would be to see that a record was kept of the condition in wh.ch every vessel bound for this country left port, and to determine the arrival load line accordingly, by treating every arriving vessel as if the coal consumed during the voyage were still on board. This Bill would not be of much use unless foreign and British ships were put on an equal footing. In many cases the whole difference between profit and loss lay in the advantage which foreign vessels had over the British with regard to bunker coal. For years, under the free trade fetish, we had allowed foreign ships to compete unfairly with us. It was too late to repair the mischief of the past, but it was not too late to prevent the continuance of that mischief in the future. This Bill did not go far enough and should be withdrawn, the load-line question ought to be threshed out again, and a new Bill brought in which should contain all that was good in this Bill and put both British and foreign ships really upon an equality. He noticed that Clause 6 was described as "Saving for ships coming in under
  1038
  stress of weather, etc." The most important part of that phrase was the "etc." because when the clause was read it was found that any foreign vessel might, under certain circumstances, come into a British port for the purpose of taking in bunker coal; she could take in hundreds of tons and do anything she pleased. That was all included in "etc." Under this clause a foreign vessel which had been overloaded all the voyage could come into a British port alongside a British vessel which carried hundreds of tons less and yet could not be touched because she only came in for bunker coal.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs)said that the hon. Gentleman was mistaken. If a ship came in for bunker coal it would be in exactly the same position as if it, came in to discharge cargo.
  MR. DAVID MACIVERsaid he did not think so; but if it were made clear that the clause meant what the right hon. Gentleman said, his objection would be disposed of. There was a great deal in this Bill that required to be made clear. He had rather associated this clause with the replacement of some portion of the coal that had been used on the voyage, and he thought his interpretation was right. Clause 10 dealt with the loading of timber. That clause was of very doubtful value either to the seaman or to the ship-owner, and he doubted whether it ought to be in the Bill at all. The interpretation of the clause might carry the inference that the bulwarks of a ship should be seven feet high. Hon. Members who like himself had been on the sea would agree that bulwarks of that height, however they might add to the comfort of a ship in moderate weather, would add considerably to the danger the ship would incur in bad weather Unless the ship was provided with freeing ports for the water which came on board, there would be left a space in which a great mass of water might be confined to the great danger of the vessel. It was said that wood loaded to the top of the bulwarks would keep out the water and make the ship safe. But what about

  1039
  the people having to go about the ship with wood loaded up to the top of the bulwarks, without a rail and no protection whatever, except perhaps a life line which was a very poor protection? There was a great deal to be said in favour of the view that this clause was an undesirable one. Clause 13 dealt with the prohibition as to the engaging of seamen with an insufficient knowledge of English. That sounded reasonable, but knowing what he did of the conditions under which some ship owners conducted their business he wondered how they came so readily to agree to it. One of the leading ship owning firms in this country, Messrs. Alfred Holt & Co., who were of the same politics as the right hon. Gentleman, and whose ships traded between Liverpool and the Chinese ports, had about 2,000 Chinese on board their ships. Prom a business point of view these Chinese people were very satisfactory, but he did not at first under it and how the language test was got over in that case. He wondered whether the President of the Board of Trade knew. But if they read this clause they would see that before the language test could be applied the seamen must be engaged at some port of the British Isles or between the River Elbe and Brest. He did not suppose these 2,000 well - behaved Chinamen who were serving in British ships were engaged in the particular manner described in the clause, and therefore they were free from the operations of the Bill. There were a great many parts of the Bill to which he took exception. Clause 51 said—
  "Where it appears to the Commissioners of Customs that there is any doubt as to the title of any ship registered as a British ship to be so registered, they may direct the registrar of the port of registry of the ship to require evidence to be given to his satisfaction that the ship was entitled to be registered as a British ship.
  One would suppose at a first glance that this clause was intended to provide whereby no ship could be registered as a British ship unless she was a British ship. Nothing of the kind. Foreigners could not own British ships, but there was nothing in the world to prevent foreigners forming a limited liability company, registering the company in London, and being owners of the vessels. The President of the Board of Trade not unfrequently spoke elo-
  1040
  quently of the great extent of British shipping, but he was apt to forget, and many forgot, that about 1,000,000 tons of the finest shipping in the world that sailed under the British flag was not British at all and would not in any way be touched by this clause. The magnificent fleet of vessels of which the White Star Line was one, belonged to what was known as the American Combine. Although the ships were registered in this country, the shares of those companies were mostly held elsewhere. [Cries of "No, no."] He knew what he was talking about. These ships were practically owned in the United States of America, and under this Bill they would still continue to be registered under the British Flag, although they were not British owned ships in the true sense of the word. Our American friends were very shrewd business people, and they had delightful arrangements whereby they combined the advantages of both countries and got the protection of the British laws while they were sufficiently American to be fairly safe in getting all that the American law gave. He did not like this clause relating to the ownership and registration of vessels. It ought to be, in some future Bill, so amended as to make it quite clear that no ship would be entitled to a British register unless there were two-thirds or at all events some considerable proportion really bona fide British property. No one could point to this Bill as a complete settlement of the questions in regard to which British ship owners had a right to complain. He thought much more was being claimed for the Bill than it actually did. When they came to the question of deduction of spaces used for water ballast in ascertaining the dues paying tonnage, he might point out that complaint had reasonably been made of the insufficient amount of water ballast carried by many steamers. It had been said with perfect truth that some of these vessels would be safer if they carried more water ballast, and it had also been said with perfect truth that the vessels of the particular construction which Clause 51 was intended to favour were perfectly safe and desirable ships. The vessels to which he referred were an extremely good type of ship which ought not to be discouraged. He bad

  1041
  heard builders point out this in recommending this new type of vessel. One vessel of this description got into trouble and was actually saved and brought into port by reason of these top side water ballast tanks. But did not this show that these spaces were really useful and necessary for the purposes of flotation? They were required in order to enable the vessel to carry her weight, and therefore should be added to the tonnage. He disliked the clause as it stood because it was unfair and because it favoured a particular class of vessel. He was very far from making any personal charge, but it so happened that the owners of these vessels sat only on the Ministerial side of the House. They had had an opportunity, perfectly legitimate and fair, of representing their views to the President of the Board of Trade. He did not blame them for that.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he must correct his hon. friend. He thought he was going a little too far. The only shipowners who had had an opportunity of representing their views in the sense of which the hon. Gentleman spoke were the Chairman and the Secretary of the Parliamentary Committee of Ship owners. The Chairman was sitting on the hon. Gentleman's own side. The Secretary sat on the Ministerial side. He also heard Mr. Cuthbert Law, who was Secretary of the Shipping Federation, and who, he thought, belonged to the same Party as the hon. Gentleman opposite.
  MR. DAVID MACIVERsaid it was the fact that his shipbuilding friends were in favour of the clause. He would be in favour of it himself if he was a shipbuilder. He did not blame them. It was a business question. It benefited that particular class of ship, and held out a vista of shipbuilding orders designed to meet the new conditions and which would enable new ships so constructed to compete unfairly with other vessels.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I simply interrupted because the hon. Gentleman said I had consulted shipping men only on this side of the House.
  MR. DAVID MACIVERsaid he did not say that. What he said was that
  1042
  Gentlemen on his own side of the House who were interested in this particular class of vessel had the ear of the right hon. Gentleman; but that ship owners generally were not in favour of the clause. Ship owners who were interested in the particular class of vessel which was favoured by this clause were in favour of it, but generally ship owners were not in favour of it, His contention was that such water ballast spaces as Clause 51 would exempt were absolutely necessary for the flotation of the ship and that there was just as much reason why they should be added to the tonnage as there was for any other part of the vessel.
  SIR ROBERT ROPNERsaid he wished to call attention to the fact, as he had done before, that when this Bill was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman he gave ship owners to understand that in future foreign ships would be treated exactly the same as English ships, and for that reason ship owners supported the right hon. Gentleman and submitted to clauses in this Bill to which they would not otherwise have submitted If the Bill had applied the British load line provisions to foreign ships he would not have complained, but it did not do so. He was perfectly well aware that under the new Bill foreign ships would have to have a load line the same as English ships, but that was only an advantage in appearance. It was not an advantage to British ship owners at all. Up to now the Board of Trade had insisted on foreign vessels being loaded in English ports similarly to British vessels, and the officials would stop those ships that were overloaded. What British ship owners expected to get was that all ships arriving in our ports would be treated similarly to their own ships.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: So they are.
  SIR ROBERT ROPNERsaid they were not. The facts were that to-day foreign vessels might arrive in our ports with the load line awash, having made five-sixths of the voyage overloaded; but they had burnt 100 or more tons of bunker coal during the passage. If British ships arrived with their load line awash

  1043
  the owners were proceeded against, because the vessels must have been overloaded when they left the last port. This was not a small matter. If this Bill had placed foreign ships in the same position as our own ship owners would have applauded it. British ship owners were thoroughly dissatisfied with the measure, because they were being subjected to a scale of wages for seamen which would entail considerable extra cost. The provision that coolies had to be certificated also meant that they would have to be paid higher wages. They would never have submitted to the conditions imposed under the Bill had they known that foreigners were not going to be treated in the same way as English Owners. Ship owners had been entirely misled. He desired especially to call attention to Clause 72 in regard to which he understood that some of his ship owning friends had agreed to some kind of a compromise. That was the reason why the clause was found in the Bill. It had been provided that the marine board superintendents should in future be appointed by the Board of Trade. He hardly needed to explain why marine boards were brought into existence. They were instituted to see that justice was done to sailors and firemen, and he was quite willing that that should be done upon all occasions. He would like to ask why had this clause made its appearance in the Bill? Two or three months ago an order was issued by the Board of Trade to the mercantile marine boards to allow a friend to be admitted with a sailor when he was paid off. This created a dispute between ship owners and sailors which never would have existed if those so-called friends had not been called in. As far as he was aware there had been in the past satisfaction with everything that had been done by these superintendents, but unfortunately, at the instigation of so-called representatives of sailors and firemen, the Board of Trade issued this order to allow a friend to be called in. The result was that practically all the marine boards declined to carry out the order. What was the use of marine boards at all if men were introduced in order to prevent them acting fairly between sailors and ship owners? The consequence was that the Board of
  1044
  Trade gave notice of this clause and threatened that, unless the ship owners accepted it, probably the mercantile marine boards would be done away with altogether. As a matter of fact, notice of an Amendment to that effect was given by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough. He was sorry the snip-owners had not agreed to do away with the marine boards altogether, because they would be no use whatever if they were under the thumb of the Board of Trade. Every man on board a steamer who thought he had a grievance would enlarge it and acting, with his so-called friends, the marine boards would be gradually undermined. He had been led to believe and fear that a clause of this description would ultimately lead to accidents and possibly to a large loss of life. He thought every hon. Member must see that instead of this Bill being a great advantage to the ship owners of the country, it would be a disadvantage if what was now proposed was accepted as a final settlement of the question.
  MR. MACLEANthought there was a danger of the introduction of a so-called "sailors friend" leading to the sailor's own disadvantage. The man who got hold of the sailor might be someone outside the proper official of the trade union; he might be something in the nature of a "crimp." He particularly desired to draw attention to what he considered was a somewhat grave omission from the Bill, and that was the absence of any provision for bettering the system of apprenticeship of the officers for the mercantile marine. Although there had been a great increase in the tonnage of British shipping it had been accompanied by a decrease in the number of British sailors employed. He thought in this matter they should start at the right end and begin with the boys. The present system was absolutely chaotic. They could not adopt the German system because it was so nearly related to the Navy. His opinion was that it would be impossible to get boys from respectable middle class homes, with such education as was necessary for those who went in for this profession, unless some means could be found of providing them with more suitable accommodations on board

  1045
  ship. He remembered an old captain telling him that he had four sons wild to go to sea, but he was afraid to let them go on account of the conditions prevailing on many of the ships. They all knew the mixture of nationalities and the general surroundings on board had now made a ship absolutely an improper place for young lads. This was really a national question. He did not think the argument that shipowners should bear the whole cost of training their own officers would hold for a moment when they considered the enormous amount of money spent by the nation annually in technical training. Enormous sums were taken from the rates and taxes for training in all kinds of British handicrafts, and what greater interest was there than that of the British mercantile marine? Yet the nation practically contributed nothing at all for the training of the officers and men who took part in that important industry. He hoped the President of the Board of Trade would, in the years of office that lay before him, attend to this matter, because it was one which was worthy of his best and highest attention.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid he looked upon the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Stockton as largely in the nature of stage thunder. The hon. Baronet had said that shipowners were against this Bill. He ventured to say that shipowners had a good deal to be thankful for in this Bill, because if the seamen had anything to complain of at all it was that the shipowners had the best of the bargain with the President of the Board of Trade. The seamen took up an altogether different attitude to the Bill from that of the shipowners. They were always thankful for small concessions, and he thanked his right, hon. friend for the small concessions they had received in this Bill. They had obtained, for instance, a statutory food scale. It was a long way short of what he wanted and of what they ought to have, because the Departmental Committee presided over by the late Lord St. Helier recommended a much more liberal scale than that in the Bill. Still, it was a step in the right direction, and it would prevent men from being starved, as many of them
  1046
  had been on board ship. They were also thankful for the small concession they had got with regard to the employment of alien seamen, but he held that their employment on board British ships should conform to our standard, and they should be competent seamen in every way. The Bill provided that they must speak and understand the English language, and certainly that would be a safeguard. It would be some protection of the lives of the people employed on board our ships. The provision might have been extended to all the ports in the world, because it was just as dangerous to take on board at New York a crew of foreigners who could not speak English as at Rotterdam, Hamburg, or a Danish port. Still they had to consider the shipowners in the matter, and when they stated that they might be put to the expense of sending a crew to New York then, as reasonable men, the sailors took a reasonable view of the matter, and accepted the small instalment of what they would like to have. He was thankful also for the clause for the inspection of a ship's provisions. It was now over thirteen years since a law was passed providing for the inspection of provisions in ships going round Cape Horn. He had known cases where inspectors had condemned the food on board ships as being unfit for use, and the same food was afterwards placed on vessels going to the Black Sea and to Mediterranean ports. The clause which provided for the general supervision of provisions in ships in all trades was a step in the right direction, and he was thankful to his right hon. friend for it. With regard to forecastle accommodation he was afraid he could not congratulate his right hon. friend to the same extent. Although the seamen were to have 120 cubic feet of space, the washhouses or bathrooms were to be taken out of it. He thought they ought to have had 120 cubic feet for sleeping, and that the space for washhouses or bathrooms should have been extra. He was also disappointed that lascars were not placed on the same level as British seamen with regard to space. In the course of time it would be quite possible to drive British seamen entirely out of British ships by lascar labour.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEindicated dissent.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid his right hon. friend shook his head in regard to that point. He remembered the time, not many years ago, when lascars could not be employed beyond 38 degrees latitude. He knew of a case now where they were employed crossing the Atlantic to New York. He recently heard of a case where a ship was manned by a Chinese crew employed in the iron ore trade to Bilbao. He should have liked his right hon. friend to go as far as he had asked him, and to provide in the Bill that the Chinese and lascars, if employed on British ships, should have the same conditions as Britishers. He did not mean the same kind of food, for his right hon. friend would know that lascars did not eat the same class of food as Britishers, but there was no reason why lascars should be starved. He would have liked the President of the Board of Trade to take power under this Bill to inquire into the kind and quantity of food which lascars were given. He hoped his right hon. friend would take into consideration the necessity of providing a proper food scale for lascars, and seeing that they were not unfairly dealt with. British seamen did not fear competition from lascars or foreigners. The hon. Member for Stockton had performed a sort of war dance in referring to the local marine boards and the clause with reference to the taking over of the power of appointing superintendents. The hon. Baronet said that the only reason for this was that the President of the Board of Trade wanted to make provision for a seaman taking into the shipping office a friend to assist him. He himself was one of the sea lawyers, and he might tell the hon. Baronet that for ten years his intervention at the mercantile marine offices in "Well Street, London, had resulted in a saving to the seamen of not less than £1,000 a year. Instead of increasing litigation his action had had the opposite effect. The local marine board in Well Street had always recognised the principle of allowing a seaman to take a friend in to put his case before the superintendent and the master. Only yesterday he was called in in a case where a number of seamen
  1048
  were making a most extravagant demand for breach of contract. They had "signed on" a ship and they supposed that they were bound on a two years voyage, but at the end of six weeks they were discharged at Alexandria and sent on to London. At the marine board offices they were claiming twelve months compensation for breach of contract. He had an interview with these men and he put them in a more reasonable frame of mind. That was where a friend could be of some service, not only to seamen, but to shipowners. He was certain that the friendly advice that had very often been given to seamen at the marine board offices had prevented a good deal of litigation. Why should not seamen have the right to have some one to represent them? Instead of interfering with discipline on board ship it had just the opposite effect. He believed that if an injustice was done to seamen it would incline them to be more unruly and to create a disturbance. If a seaman got justice he was like everybody else—he was satisfied. As to the clause in the Bill in regard to deck loads, he would make an appeal to his right hon. friend. He was not satisfied with it, and he felt that there were a good many like himself who did not like the alteration. He had made inquiries of shipowners and others since the debate on Friday last; and he could not find any shipowner who had asked for the change. Who was it that was demanding this alteration? The right hon. Gentleman was good enough on Friday to make some concessions by adding words to the clause providing for the better protection of seamen on ships with deck loads. He would suggest that a further concession might he made. He was inclined to agree with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that on well-deck ships, timber might be loaded up to the top of the bulwarks, and that proper safeguards should be put up for the protection of the seamen. But he was seriously opposed to flush deck vessels, which only tad a rail for bulwarks, carrying seven feet of timber. He would suggest that these flush deck vessels should only be allowed to carry a deck load of three feet He would give a very good reason for that. On flush-deck vessels there was

  1049
  only a rail, and the cargo had to be secured by chains running through ringbolts in the deck. Three feet of timber might be secured on deck with safety in that manner; but when they came to increase the deck cargo to seven feet, then too great a strain would be put on the ring-bolts, and if strong gales were encountered in the winter time and heavy seas were breaking on board, the ring-bolts would give way, the whole deck cargo go overboard and the ship become practically a wreck. He thought that the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade should, when the Bill went to another place, have an Amendment introduced allowing well-deck ships to carry cargo up to the level of the bulwarks, and flush-deck ships only to carry three feet of deck cargo. Personally he did not believe in deck loads at all. The decks of ships were intended for the crew to do their work, and when a gale was blowing and heavy seas were breaking over the vessel, a deck load was not safe. Why should not the timber, instead of being piled up on the decks of ships, be built in huge rafts which could be towed? He believed, however, that that was tried as an experiment on the American coast, but it was found that in rough weather the rafts went to pieces and eventually the experiment was given up as an unprofitable job. He fully recognised the fact of foreign competition. Foreigners very often carried unrestricted deck loads; but that might be dealt with by international arrangement. The President of the Board of Trade might approach foreign Governments on the matter of making a universal restriction of deck loads. He could say that in consequence of regulations passed by the House of Commons and enforced by the Board of Trade, there had been a very marked change in the measures taken for the safety of seamen. In the year 1884–5 3,200 men were lost, killed, or drowned on board British ships. The loss was now less than 1,400, due, in his opinion, to the splendid regulations to which he had referred. The fact was, however, that while the loss of life on or from British ships had been steadily; decreasing, the loss on foreign ships had been steadily increasing. The state of
  1050
  affairs on board Swedish and Norwegian ships was terrible. He thought it would be for the benefit of shipowners if further legislation were passed to secure additional safety to seamen on shipboard, especially in view of the probable extension of the Workmen's Compensation Act to seamen. In regard to repatriation of British seamen changes had been made in the Bill which he could not understand. In Sub-section 12, page 16, it was stated that—
  "This sub-Section shall not apply in the case of an absent seaman."
  He thought that if a man deserted a ship, or through misfortune failed to join his ship before it left a foreign port, that man was an "absent seaman."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that his hon. friend should read on further. The next words in the sub-section were—
  "This subsection shall not apply to absent seamen in cases of (a), (b), (c) and (d)."
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid he had read the whole sub-section but it did not seem to him clear. An "absent seaman" was a man who was absent from his ship for any cause.. Then in Clause 32 it was provided that where the services of a seaman belonging to a British ship terminated at a foreign port, the master of the ship should provide for his being sent home at the expense of the ship. He asked the President of the Board of Trade why such a provision was not made in the case of a seaman discharged in a port in His Majesty's dominions abroad. Take the case of a man who had signed an agreement for two years, but at the end of the two years instead of the ship being in a port of the United Kingdom, she was at Hong Kong. Why should not that man be sent home at the expense of the owner, as he would be if the voyage had terminated at a foreign port? He wished that the right hon. Gentleman had been able to put into the Bill a provision for certificates being issued to firemen and shipwrights, and he hoped that he might be able to make that provision in another Bill next year. He knew that some hon. Gentlemen had said that when this Shipping Bill was passed they did not want any more

  1051
  shipping legislation for the next 100 years. He hoped, however, that the right hon. Gentleman would say that this Bill was only a small instalment of reform. A Committee sat some years ago on the manning of ships; and he thought it was the duty of Parliament to take notice of the Report of that Committee and the recommendations they made in regard to firemen's certificates and the introduction of a scale for the manning of ships. He trusted that next year, when the right hon Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade settled down to his work, he might find time to bring forward measures dealing with the recommendations of that and other Committees on the shipping interest. He recognised that the right hon. Gentleman had had a great task indeed in piloting n. Bill of this kind through the House of Commons; and that he had done so with tact and skill. It had been said that the shipowners had not been consulted on the matter, but he knew that they and the Shipowners' Society had been consulted at every stage. Of course every gentleman connected with the shipping industry could not expect to be consulted. A great deal had been accomplished by the conferences which had taken place from time to time. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the excellent work that had been done in the Bill, and he said that as one who wanted a lot of satisfying. He trusted that next year they could look forward to legislation which would deal with many other points which had been left open. He supported the Third Reading of the Bill.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he agreed with the hon. Member for Middlesbrough that in respect to this Bill one had to be thankful for small mercies. After listening to the speech of the hon. Member he felt chastened, and realised that things might have been very much worst than they were. The hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool, who moved the rejection of the Bill, in the course of his speech had made a most gratuitous imputation upon his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade in saying that the right
  1052
  hon. Gentleman had consulted certain shipowners who were of the same political complexion as himself. It was true that in a later part of his speech the hon. Member had to some extent atoned for that expression of opinion, but he might say in reply to the whole speech of the hon. Member that if cupidity was the vice of shipowners on that side of the House, lucidity was not the vice of shipowners on the other. On what did the hon. Member base his opposition to the measure? He admitted that it was a Bill which, from his point of view, was worthy of support, except in one particular point, and that was the gravamen of his charge against the Bill, that it failed to go as far as he desired it to go, because it did not place foreign ships in British ports on the same basis as British ships, and that the Bill did not apply to foreign ships to the same extent as it did to British ships. In his opinion, however, if the House looked upon the Bill as a whole and considered the variety of interests involved and the various matters of administration which it covered, he thought it was an extraordinary thing that a shipowner on either side of the House should come forward and move the rejection of the Bill on the ground that it did not go far enough. He had very little sympathy with the views put forward by the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool or the hon. Member for Stockton, and he could not consider that they in any way justified their moving the rejection of the Bill. It seemed to him that the hon. Gentlemen were acting like a man who re-fused to eat his Christmas pudding because it lacked the spoonful of brandy which he desired. He was one of those who went into the lobby, not with a view of getting foreign vessels penalised, but in favour of putting them on the same footing in regard to the load-line as English vessels, by making them conform at the port of origin with the requirements of British law. He thought it was a perfectly futile proceeding now on the Third Reading to come forward and say that, because a particular portion of the Bill relating to the safety of foreign vessels

  1053
  was not carried so far as the shipowners would like, that was a reason for moving the rejection of the Bill.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has several times stated that there is a Motion for the rejection of the Bill. That has not been made. There is no such Motion.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORapologised, and said he thought the hon. Member moved that the Bill should be read that day three months.
  MR. SPEAKER: He did not move it.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid that in that case he understood there was no Amendment before the House, but he would like to say, on behalf of a considerable section of shipowners, that they did not regard the application of the regulations for the safety of foreign vessels as a very great concession to the shipowning interest in this country. He had no idea of giving any artificial protection to foreigners, but the regulations which had been applied were applied from the point of view of safety and with the object of avoiding loss of life and raising the standard of safety throughout the country. He had never understood that this reform was initiated with a desire to benefit British ships or penalise foreign ships, but it was desirable that the same regulations should be applied to foreign as to British ships. He did not think that the regulations as applied to foreign vessels were in any sense a concession to the shipowners of this country, but he regarded it as part of an international policy for enforcing a system of safety, not only for British vessels, but for foreign vessels in British ports. He had never thought it a hardship that foreign vessels should obey the rules as to the load line, or that they should be required to conform to our regulations as regards passengers. On the contrary, he thought the more we taught them to raise their standard as regards loading, safety, and general equipment the more efficient we should find them. He had never felt that the shipowners were under a great debt of gratitude to His Majesty's Government, but what
  1054
  shipowners were thankful for was that the right hon. Gentleman had found desirable to consult not only with the shipowners, but with every interest concerned, with the result that a Bill had been framed which was less prejudicial to the complicated interests of the shipping trade than any shipping Bill which had come before the House of Commons. If the right hon. Gentleman had pursued the same policy in administration, some difficulties which had arisen might have been more or less solved. The provisions in favour of seamen deprived hon. Members of any pretext for calling it a shipowners' Bill, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to congratulation from all quarters on the scheme by means of which he had reconciled conflicting interests, while it was admitted that the measure had not received from the shipowners anything like a factious or gratuitous opposition. The Bill was not a shipowners' Bill, but a Bill for the improvement of the conditions of employment at sea, and for generally regulating and facilitating the management of British ships. There were a number of small details very important to the shipping interest which the Bill had converted into law, and though he felt that the shipping interest had not benefited so much as other interests, he also felt that things might have been much worse. Many most threatening and dangerous experiments which a great many well meaning people on both sides of the House were desirous of of trying on the shipping interest had not been incorporated in the Bill, and shipowners on the whole were of opinion that matters might have been very much worse. It was better to have the devil they knew than the devil they did not know, and whatever might be shadowed forth by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough as to the years to come he might put it that their pious aspiration was that "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid he had never concealed the fact that upon the whole he thought this Bill was a good one, and in every one of its stages he had done his best to help it through the House. It would indeed have been strange if one had taken a

  1055
  different course, because the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would agree that it would have been a difficult matter to have carried through this Bill except for the fact that he had the assistance of the Reports of three Committees appointed by the late Government to consider this question. That, however, did not detract from the skill with which the right hon: Gentleman had conducted the Bill through the House. It was one thing to have the materials and another to make use of them in, the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had. He believed most emphatically that the shipping trade as a whole had reason to be grateful that the right hon. Gentleman had felt himself at liberty to deal at once with the subject. He did not think, however, that it was so good a Bill as it might have been made, and there were three subjects in connection with it upon which he might say a word. The first was that alluded by the hon. Member for the Kirkdale division. It was, he thought, a great mistake not to have put foreign ships in the same position as British ships trading with British ports. That subject was dealt with at great length in the Committee stage, and he did not think there was any reason now why it should not be done. It had been suggested that the Bill should be dropped altogether on that ground, but that was a very strong step. But it was one of the blemishes on the Bill, and he hoped that it would be removed before the Bill received the Royal Assent. He appreciated the ground upon which the right hon. Gentleman objected to place British and foreign ships upon an equality in this matter, the danger of foreign complications arising, but he could not help thinking that if the right hon. Gentleman found the Peers, who had the same opportunity to consider this point as the right hon. Gentleman took the view that that alarm was without foundation, he would accept an Amendment which would put all ships trading in our ports on an exact equality. The representatives of the marine boards, having acquiesced in the course which the right hon. Gentleman had taken with regard to those bodies was a good reason why he should not urge the House to take a different view, but he
  1056
  thought the right hon. Gentleman had taken a disastrous step. The hon. Member for Bath had put the case in a way that should commend itself to the House. A Circular was issued saying that only seamen and their representatives should be allowed to enter the rooms of the local marine boards; then that Circular was withdrawn and another issued, which said that a seaman and his next friend, whoever it might be, should be allowed to go in. They all knew that the the next friend of the seaman was the crimp, and it would be a case of competition between the crimp and the representatives of the Seamen's and Firemen's Union. What the right hon. Gentleman had done, in effect, was to allow that swarm of land sharks which was to be found outside every marine board Office in the country, and which it had been the endeavour to keep outside the offices, for the first time to get inside the office and obtain a greater power over their victims. He believed, however, that if the right hon. Gentleman found that the evil existed he would not hesitate to withdraw the Circular which allowed it. All he had to say with regard to tonnage measurements was that on Clause 55 the question was discussed at some length, but only from one point of view. It was a pity that the other point of view was not touched, but as he was a party to the bargain which had been made he was not able to deal with it. He did not wish to go fully into the subject now, but he was convinced, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not think he was saying this offensively, that the right hon. Gentleman had not grasped and tackled the problem. It was an important and complicated question, and his suggestion was that the right hon. Gentleman should not commit himself on the subject until he felt that he understood the arguments on both sides. It was said that the President of the Board of Trade had promised to support a particular proposal when the matter came back to this House. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that to make such a promise or do anything in that direction would be a mistake. The subject should be dealt with as a whole. With regard to the measurements of ships, it was suggested on Report that only the

  1057
  registered measurements should be taken into account for the dues. That was not a question between shipowners and dock owners; it was a question between owners of different classes of ships. Before the Committee upstairs owner after owner declared himself in favour of the change recommended by the hon. Member below the Gangway. He himself put to one shipowner the question, "Can you bring a witness to bear out what you say?" and that gentleman could not do so. But the question got into the papers next day, and he received a letter from the Chamber of Shipping strongly deprecating the proposal put before the Committee and asking him to recommend that such a change should not be made. Under these circumstances the right hon. Gentleman would feel that he ought not to deal hastily and, above all, without making sure that the class most interested in this question, the shipowners, desired it. He believed this Bill was, on the whole, fair to the shipowners and to the men, and that it would never have been carried through the House if the right hon. Gentleman had not had regard to, and constantly consulted, those whose interests would be most affected.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he desired to thank the hon. Member for Dulwich for the very kind way in which he had referred to the part which he (Mr. Lloyd-George) had taken in getting this Bill through the House. He also took the opportunity of stating that he had been treated throughout the passage of the Bill with exemplary fairness by all who opposed it. If it had not been for that it would probably have been impossible for him to have got the Bill through this session, certainly not without overloading the Parliamentary ship, which was pretty well submerged already. He further acknowledged that it would not have been possible, but for the labours of the Committees appointed by his predecessors, Mr. Ritchie, Mr. Gerald Balfour, and the hon. Member for Dulwich. The material collected by those Committees had been of great value in the preparation of the Bill, and he had incorporated most, if not all, the suggestions made by those various Committees. The shipowners, although they had criticised various
  1058
  parts of the Bill, had, on the whole, behaved with great fairness and even liberality. They had increased the food scale for the sailor. They had made his accommodation better. Several concessions had been made for the improvement of the sailor's condition generally, with regard to allotment notes, to his treatment when distressed, and when ill abroad; and he had not had a single protest from any shipowners' association with regard to any of these concessions. That was why he very much regretted one or two speeches which had been delivered to-day. The hon. Baronet the Member for Stockton had suggested that if the shipowners had known they were not going to get a certain concession with regard to load-line, they would have opposed the Bill from the start, and would have resisted all these concessions to the sailor. He was very glad to believe there was no foundation for that suggestion. The shipowners, he thought, knew perfectly well what the Rill was. They received copies of it, and discussed every line of it. They had never protested against any of these concessions. The hon. Baronet the Member for Stockton said, "We were completely misled." He would like to ask when were shipowners misled. The hon. Baronet was one of those who had a copy of the Bill before it was introduced, and who know what its provisions were, and he heard it explained in the House. Let it be assumed that the explanation he gave was not particularly lucid; even so, the hon. Baronet had the provisions before him, and knew exactly what was proposed, so that he was the last man in the House who should complain about being misled.
  SIR ROBERT ROPNERasked if he might explain that the Committee upstairs carried the provision that individual vessels coming from foreign ports should be loaded the same as British vessels —that foreign vessels should be in the same condition as British. That was carried, and he was under the impression that it would be in the Bill. Consequently he had a perfect right to say he was, at any rate, under a wrong impression, if not misled.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid there was the First Reading and the Second Reading,

  1059
  when the provision in the Bill was exactly as it was at the present moment. The hon. Baronet knew perfectly well what that provision was, and had no right at all to complain of being misled. The hon. Member for Dulwich had complained that the Government had not put foreign ships in exactly the same position as British ships. He, however, still maintained they had taken the right line with regard to that. We had no right to prosecute foreigners for breaches of the law outside British jurisdiction. If they had committed an offence in Spain or some other foreign country, it was rather a strong order for us to proceed with a prosecution for what they did there; but when they came within British territorial waters they were no more exempt from prosecution for an offence than British ships. That was a conceivable principle. He was sorry to hear the hon. Member suggest that possibly there might be an alteration before the Bill received the Royal Assent in the direction of making a foreign ship liable to prosecution for an offence committed outside our jurisdiction. He thought it was a very dangerous principle, and might lead to complications.
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid that that very thing was done in the Bill at present. It made ships bringing grain responsible not only for the condition in which they arrived in England, but for the condition in which they left a foreign port. That was an offence committed outside our jurisdiction.
  MR. LLOYD GEORGEsaid he had already pointed out that that was a totally different question, for the simple reason that if grain was loaded, say, at a Canadian port under certain conditions, they could not put that ship into a condition conformable with our law when it arrived here They could not throw 300 or 400 tons of grain overboard during the voyage. But the case which the hon. Gentleman dealt with was a totally different thing. It was the case of a ship which, although when it arrived here, it complied with our regulation, left the foreign port in a condition contrary to our law. That was a totally different case. The breach of the law in the first case continued up to the point when the ship reached our port. We punished it, not for an offence in the North
  1060
  Atlantic, but for the offence of reaching our port in a condition which was an infringement of the provisions of the law. The provision had been inserted for the protection of human life.
  MR. BON AR LAWsaid the distinction drawn was not a distinction between offences, but as to the ease of proving the offences.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the hon. Gentleman was absolutely wrong. In order to illustrate the matter the hon. Gentleman gave the case of a ship leaving a Canadian port in a particular condition which would be an infringement of our law in regard to the load-line, and to the conditions relating to cargoes; it then went to Hamburg and discharged part of the grain cargo there, so as to be in a condition which would enable it to come to our ports. Then the hon. Gentleman suggested that we should prosecute.
  MR. BONAR LAW: Your Bill says so.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the hon. Member was perfectly wrong. He consulted the law officers at the time, and they told him no prosecution would lie in that case. Therefore, there was absolutely nothing in that. Let him take the point in regard to the Circular issued to local marine boards. He was not defending that at present, because he did not consider it relevant to the discussion. When the Board of Trace Vote came on it might be debated. But since the matter had been referred to, he was bound to make a few observations. He was asked that when a sailor had a dispute with the master or owner of a ship with regard to wages, or other matters, which came before the superintendents, he should allow him to call in a friend, even though that friend happened to be a member of the Seamen's Union. He thought it was a perfectly fair thing to do. He would tell the House the reason. When the sailor came to the local marine office, what were the circumstances? He was there confronted by the man who had been commanding him all through the voyage, a trained man, a man who must be a man of great strength and force of character and intelligence, otherwise he would never have

  1061
  reached the position. Masters were not made merely by favouritism, they were all trained, skilled men. They were men who were in the habit of dealing with accounts. The poor sailor was no match for a man of that kind when he came before the superintendent. This was not all. The master could call in to his aid a trained man; he did, as a matter of fact, take with him the shipbroker or the shipbroker's clerk, a man trained to deal with accounts. Was the sailor a match in looking into accounts with the master assisted by the shipbroker and the ship-broker's agent? He was not, and he did not think it was unfair that if the sailor felt he really could not present his case fairly, he should be allowed to have somebody to go along with him in order to assist him in doing so. The hon. Member had overlooked the fact that this was not an experiment which was being made for the first time. His hon. friend behind him would not have spoken as he had if he had any knowledge of the matter, because there were one or two ports, and certainly one, in which the experiment had been tried. It had been tried in the Port of London. He put the question at the deputation of local marine boards to the representative of the local marine board for London whether they did not allow the sailor to call in friends. The answer was that they allowed it in every case. He asked whether any inconvenience had arisen, and the reply was that up to the present there had been no inconvenience. The experiment had been tried for fifteen years in the greatest port in the world, and it had been a success. They had not had sea lawyers and sharks—he forgot by what other names Seamon's union representatives had been called. But he would say this to the hon. Member and those who had some misgiving on the point. If they found any of these evils resulted— he did not expect them— there would be a case for reconsideration. He was, however, perfectly convinced that the thing would work out smoothly in other ports as it had done already in the Port of London. He was rather surprised to hear hon. Members support the action of the local marine boards in defying instructions. He was very glad the hon. Member opposite did not do so. It would be perfectly impossible to carry on any
  1062
  adminstration if that were allowed, and the course which had been adopted, even though the Circular were not the right kind of Circular, at any rate made the Amendment which he had introduced absolutely inevitable if the local marine boards were to be kept as part of the administration of the merchant shipping of the country. With regard to tonnage he had nothing to add. He had already said the question of tonnage ought not to be introduced into this Bill. The only promise he would make to his hon. friend was that if Bills were introduced—and they understood Bills would be introduced by the dock companies for the purpose of redressing grievances, and he considered them to be real grievances—as far as he was concerned, he would support the reference of those Bills to a Committee of the Whole House. He did not think he ought to go beyond that. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough had put to him a few questions with regard to some points in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman had tried to draw a distinction between ships with a well-deck and flush deck ships. He was advised there was no real difference. With regard to the protection of life there was more danger to human life in the flush deck vessels, and the Committee, when they came to consider the regulations, should take more detailed and more careful precautions for the protection of human life. That was a question which he hoped would be borne in mind. With regard to timber, his hon. friend had rather exaggerated the danger. He knew that British ships at the present moment carried timber on deck under the very conditions incorporated in this clause. What they really did was to do their winter timber trade to the Continent. They brought timber during the winter, and they arranged that all timber for the Continent should be on deck, and all timber for British ports should be under cover. The best thing for the protection of the sailors was that they should regulate that traffic as was proposed. Already as a result of the debate which took place last Friday there had been an improvement. They were introducing regulations for the protection of life, and that was a better system than the irregular one which new existed. His hon. friend the Member for Bath had

  1063
  asked a question about apprentices, and he agreed that that was a very important matter. If they desired" to have the British mercantile marine manned to any large extent by British sailors in the future, it could only be by resuscitating the old system of apprenticeship. Two months ago he appointed a Committee composed very largely of shipowners, and they were going into this matter. They were considering how they could best re-introduce a better system of apprenticeship. He did not know what their Report would be, but they were going into the matter very carefully and zealously, and he hoped as a result of their deliberations the House would be able to do something to improve the present proportion of British to foreign sailors in the mercantile marine. With regard to Indian legislation upon the subject of lascars, he had already brought before the notice of the Secretary of State for India the representations made by the Committee upstairs, and he believed that his right hon. friend had sent the matter over to India for further investigation. Up to the present nothing had reached him as to the result of those investigations by the India Office.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid he meant with regard to lascars engaged in the ports of the United Kingdom, and not in India.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid they were practically part of the same service. He knew they were ominally engaged here, but they were practically engaged in Indian ports, nd the ma te must remain one for the Indian Council to deal with. At any rate, that had always been the practice in the past, and he did not see any reason to depart from it. He did not know whether there was any other point-to which he ought to refer. He desired to thank hon. Members and those outside who had assisted him in framing the Bill. He desired to thank particularly the hon. Member for the East Toxteth Division of Liverpool, whose services had been very helpful, and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, who had been very moderate in his demands. He thought the shipowners on the Committee were fully prepared to acknowledge that.
  1064
  With regard to those outside the House who had assisted him so much, he would like to mention Mr. Norman Hill, the representative of the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association, for very few men understood merchant shipping better than he did. Mr. Hill had sat upon many sub-committees, and he felt that he must acknowledge publicly his valuable services. He had also found the Bill introduced on this subject by the Secretary to the Local Government Board, which was endorsed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Stockton, very useful. He was only sorry that the hon. Baronet thought so badly of the present Bill, because several clauses from ' his hon. friend's measure had been incorporated in this Bill. He did not think there was anything else he could usefully add. Several concessions had been made to shipowners, and to seamen as well, but what satisfied him most of all was that all these concessions had been carried by the mutual goodwill of all sections of the British shipping community.
  MR. EVELYN CECILsaid he was very glad to be able to take an active part in the discussion on this Bill. He agreed that it embodied valuable concessions as regarded British shipping, and he thought it was a measure which went very far to satisfy all sides. It was much to the credit of the President of the Board of Trade that he had succeeded in bringing together the various interests of shipowners, seamen, dock-owners, pilots, and those engaged in British trade generally, and in the main the result was one upon which the House could look with satisfaction. There were several broad principles which appeared to underlie the Bill itself. First of all there was the principle of safety to human life, and this was paid attention to by the provision that foreign ships should be treated in British ports exactly in the same way as British ships. On this point he regretted that the President of the Board of Trade was unable to see his way to extend the operation of those regulations to foreign ships which overloaded with coal in foreign ports. He hoped that on further consideration he might see his way to alter his policy in this direction

  1065
  in the near future. Of course, the responsibility must lie with the right hon. Gentleman. He thought it was quite possible that with an audacious policy of endeavouring to treat foreign ships bound for this country the same as British ships, they might do something in the way of bringing foreign nations to realise the value of the British regulations. The right hon. Gentleman had determined, in spite of the decision of the Grand Committee upstairs, that that was not the proper policy at the present time, and with the crack of the Party whip he had upset their decision. He was sure that what the right hon. Gentleman desired to do was to bring foreign nations to see eye to eye with ourselves as regarded the safety of human life, and if an international load line could be obtained by that or any other means he himself would be perfectly satisfied with the result in the long run. There was another principle which seemed to underlie this Bill, and that was a desire to secure freedom of the shipping trade from restrictions which would handicap them as against the trade of foreign nations. That principle was embodied in the provision applying our load line regulations to foreign ships. It was a principle which incidentally secured them fair foreign competition, and would rid them of unfair foreign competition. The principle was the basis of the whole policy of tariff reformers, and their one object was to avoid unfair foreign competition. Inesmuch as this principle underlay the provision made by the right non. Gentleman in this Bill, he might go so far as to say that he hoped some day he would be a convert to the policy of tariff reform. Another principle which he would like to hail with satisfaction was that of retaining British pilots for British ships. This was a question which had agitated the shipping world and the pilot world for some years past, but it had never been taken any notice of until this year. He was exceedingly glad that the right hon. Gentleman, after careful consultation with his advisers, bad come to the conclusion that he could safely insert Clause 71, which dealt with this question. He had never been able to understand that in a matter of this kind there could be any reason for granting certificates to alien pilots, and
  1066
  not giving a preference to our OWD. Another principle that underlay the Bill to some extent—he only wished that it went further—was that British sailors should be provided so far as possible for British ships. He knew that it was a difficult matter to deal with. He was exceedingly interested to learn from the President of the Board of Trade that he had appointed a Committee to consider the whole question of British seamen for British ships. He hoped that it would have good results. The providing of British sailors would generally mean that more money would have to be expended one way or another on apprentices, and it did not at all appear clear that they would get any better results than they had now; but the subject deserved inquiry. He did not think that the effort to get British sailors for British ships would be advanced by excluding lascars. The House could not get over the fundamental fact that lascars were British citizens. The discouragement or prohibition of them on board our ships would, he thought, seriously injure our trade in competition with that of foreign countries. If they were prohibited, German shipowners would have a chance of employing lascars under favourable circumstances. It appeared to him that, so far as some hon. Members were concerned, their object was really not so much to ensure the comfort of lascars as to prevent their employment on our ships at all. He did not think that would really be denied by the hon. Members who supported the Amendment on this question. That being so, he could only repeat that they were endeavouring to treat British citizens in a way which was not at all justifiable. If the Amendment had been passed, they would have seen the strange spectacle of British subjects being excluded from British ship. He was glad that the proposal was not embodied in the Bill. In regard to the local marine boards, it was difficult to say precisely how the new regulations would actually work. In some respects the legislation on that matter had been rather precipitate. If at the time the Board of Trade circular was issued this Bill had not been passing through the House there might have been a little less heat engendered,

  1067
  and negotiations might have been carried out which would have been more satisfactory to all concerned. He would have been glad if the President of the Board of Trade had seen his way to accept the clause dealing with the limitation of deductions for propelling space. The right hon. Gentleman had recommended that individual ports should bring up private Bills in order to increase the dock charges which they levied. He was not sure that that was a satisfactory conclusion, or even a wise one. Private Bills involved great expense, and he thought a great deal of expense would have been saved in the long run if the question had been dealt with in this Bill. If local ports were to be encouraged to come up with private Bills and to incur all the consequent expense, he thought that was hardly so statesmanlike a way of dealing with the question as the introduction of a clause in this Bill. Generally speaking, he had no hesitation in saying that this was a good Bill. It carried out the recommendations of various Committees appointed by the late Government. It brought much credit to the President of the Board of Trade and to his advisers in and out of the House, who had helped him in drawing up the measure, and he thought it would mark a sustantial step in advance in the history of the British mercantile marine.
  MR. JENKINSsaid he was glad that the President of the Board of Trade had adhered to one particular clause which it was said he was likely to withdraw. The right hon. Gentleman had emphasised his approval of that clause. He referred to the clause which permitted a seaman to bring into the local marine board offices, when a dispute arose between him and the captain, someone who was in a position to plead his case. He joined with other Members in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman upon the production of this Bill. At the same time he could not approve of deck cargoes at all. He strongly protested in the name of the British public and British seamen against deck cargoes. The deck of a ship was for the crew to perform their daily work and he was of opinion that deck cargoes were extremely dangerous. He was
  1068
  looking forward to the improvements which were to be made in flush-decks. Under present conditions deck cargoes on flush-decks were most dangerous to the seamen. As to the local marine boards, he did not think that their present constitution was altogether satisfactory, and he was glad that the President of the Board of Trade was removing the doubts from the minds of people as to the position occupied by members of these boards. In Cardiff there was already an understanding that the men could come before the shipping office and put their case through a representative. He exceedingly regretted that the recommendations of the Committee which sat in 1897, and whose work was of a very onerous character, had not been embodied in the Bill. He specially referred to the recommendations in regard to ship carpenters. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had said that the case for the ship carpenters at sea had not been made out. But he would briefly state a case which had been furnished to him. A ship with a valuable cargo of cotton lost her propeller when 300 miles from the home port, and was drifting about practically helpless. The captain asked the carpenter if he could devise a means by which the ship could be brought to land. The carpenter said he thought he could, and he rigged up an apparatus and connected it with the steam winch, which enabled the ship to reach port safely. Should not that carpenter be highly commended and rewarded for having not only saved a valuable ship and cargo, but also many valuable lives? He hop d the right hon. Gentleman would consider the advisability of considering the reasonable and modest request he had made that this question of sea-going carpenters should be dealt with in this or another measure.
  MR. STUARTsaid he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would be more pleased to get the Third Reading of the Bill than to be praised for his own action. He, however, wished to associate himself with what had been said as to the care and courtesy with which the right hon. Gentleman had conducted the Bill through

  1069
  its various stages, and especially as to the admirable method which the right hon. Gentleman had introduced of inviting the expression of expert opinion outside as well as inside the House. There was one particular matter which touched many points of great importance, on which he wished to make a few remarks, viz., the question of borrowing money on ships. A ship was different from a house in that it could run away and escape from the mortgagee. He had introduced a clause which had been accepted by the right hon. Gentleman having for its object the improvement of the position of the mortgagee of a ship. It was obviously in the interests not only of the shipbuilder and of the shipowner, but of the sailor that the money employed in the shipping industry should be obtained at as low a rate of interest as possible. His clause, now 52 in the Bill, went to allow a ship to remain on the British register so far as the interest of the mortgagee was concerned so long as she was in a British port, although sold to a foreigner. So far a distinct advantage had been gained. But if the ship were in a foreign port the mortgagee was in the unfortunate position that the claim of the mortgagee was practically gone and at best only enforceable under foreign law. Those who advanced money on ships had to take the risk into consideration. This question had been brought before him by bankers, shipbuilders, shipowners, find others who had strongly urged him to submit it to the House of Commons. He asked the President of the Board of Trade to introduce a clause in the House of Lords that a ship should not be allowed to be transferred to a foreigner from the British register without the consent of the mortgagee.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,)thought the House would agree that the exhaustive reply of his right hon. friend had covered all the points raised in the course of the debate, and he appealed to hon. Members to allow the Third Reading of the Bill to be now taken as it was being waited for in another place.
  MR. BARRIEsaid that a fuller consideration of the Bill than had been before possible had satisfied the shipping authorities with whom he had been in communication that on the whole the concessions made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade were acceptable. They were all agreed that the condition of seamen on board British ships should be improved, and that the men should be made more comfortable than they had been in the past. He was not altogether sure that the provision which lessened the term of apprenticeship would secure what was desired. He suggested that the giving of additional privileges to the able-bodied seaman on the one hand, and reducing the period of apprenticeship on the other was not calculated to attract in the future a better class of men to the mercantile marine, of which they were all proud. As to the loss of revenue to harbour authorities which had been alluded to, the whole difficulty which had arisen in recent years had been due to the complicated system of tonnage measurement adopted by Board of Trade officials. A reference had been made as to the preference given to foreign ships, and he thought British shipowners had reason to protest against it. They gave full credit to the President of the Board of Trade for the fair manner in which he had presented this Bill to the House, but he thought they might claim credit for the wholesale way in which he had adopted the recommendations of the Committees appointed by the late Government.
  MR. MORTON, said that he desired to say a few words, and only a few words, with regard to the effect of Clause 54 on the revenue of the Thames Conservancy and similar bodies whose income was mainly dependent on tonnage dues. He very much regretted that part of that income had been taken away by that clause without even a thought being bestowed upon them by the President of the Board of Trade or this House. As the clause stood before it was amended, he roughly calculated that the Thames Conservancy might lose £20,000 per annum, but as the clause

  1071
  had been amended, the loss would be about £2,000 per annum. Why the Conservancy should lose any he could not understand, as all their income went in support of the shipping industry, and in keeping the fairway clear to the shipowners. The President for the Board of Trade said he had to give the shipowners something because he had taken something away from them. It was easy to be generous with other people's money, but it was not a particularly virtuous action. The nett registered tonnage as calculated for the Thames was less than one half the actual tonnage. He hoped that before long such an anomaly would be put an end to, and that they would have the assistance of the Government in amending the existing law at an early date.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  CENSUS OF PRODUCTION BILL.
  Order for consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), read.
  MR. W. PEARCEmoved that the Bill be recommitted. When he examined the Bill for the first time last evening he found that it affected a multitude of persons who would be drawn within the meshes of its net. It was to be expected that such a Bill would apply to factories and workshops and to mines; its schedule so provided in sections (a) and (b), but the inclusion of many small trades in sections (c), (d), (e), and (f) was open to much objection. Unless the Board of Trade were very careful it would cause a lot of irritation to a number of people. These people would come under the powers of the Board of Trade, and no doubt he should be told that the President of the Board of Trade would introduce regulations under which they would not be brought under the Act. He thought, however, without casting any personal reflection, that it was undesirable that such wide powers should be given to the Board of Trade. Legislation by means of exemption could not be recommended. These powers would not be exercised by the President,
  1072
  but by the officials, and might cause a great deal of difficulty and ill will. For an offence against the Act people were liable to be fined £5, and under the Bill a large number of people would be placed at the mercy of the Board of Trade officials. In some, cases the penalties would amount to at least £1,500 in one year. He hoped the President of the Board of Trade would withdraw the Bill and bring forward one which would effect the object in a different way.
  MR. LIDDELLseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House."—(Mr. Wm. Pearce.)
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEwas understood to complain that the hon. Member had not given him notice of this Motion. He said the hon. Member had assumed that the Bill had been introduced in this autumn session, but had he made the slightest inquiry he would have found that it was introduced early in the session. It was supported by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and carried without a division. So little opposition was there that the right hon. Gentleman apologised to the House for speaking on a Bill introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule, and excused himself for so doing on the ground that no one else got up to speak. The First and Second Reading stages, which were carried without a division, were taken before the House separated for the summer vacation. Since then in the Grand Committee on Trade the whole of the matters to which the hon. Member had referred had been gone into, besides many others. In that Committee every point was carefully scrutinised by traders, and on most, he believed all, he made concessions. He had never heard anybody get up and say they were not satisfied. He regretted that the hon. Member should have moved to recommit the Bill when all the points he had alluded to could have been dealt with at another stage. If the hon. Member thought he could draft a better Bill or improve this Bill he would have his opportunity on the Report stage. He

  1073
  did not think the recommittal of the measure would be of the slightest use.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had reproved his follower for not having given him notice of this Motion. It was not for him to intervene in a family quarrel, but he would point out that most hon. Members were under the impression that the Plural Voting Bill would be taken to-day, and it was only at the last moment the notice was given that that Bill would not be taken, and that this Bill would be substituted for it. It was, therefore, a little hard that the hon. Member for Limehouse should be taken to task for not having given notice. He had been much surprised to observe that the right hon. Gentleman defended this Bill on the ground that it was approved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. The inference to be drawn from that was that as the right hon. Gentleman was doing some thing which had the approval of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham it was presumption on the part of the hon. Member for Lime-house to move his Motion. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman had changed his opinions and had taken the right hon. Member for West Birmingham for his leader and was going to follow him in matters of trade by bringing in this Bill. He was not against the principle of the Bill, but anyone looking at it would see that it was going to give a great deal of trouble and annoyance to manufacturers and involve them in expense. The questions which had to be answered were of a most inquisitorial character, and were such that many would not care to answer. For instance, one was "What is the net cost of production." He had never been in business himself, but he could quite imagine that many manufacturers would be very loth to answer that question, even if it was to be treated confidentially by the officials of the Board of Trade. The information so given might leak out and injure the person who gave it by enabling his competitors to know what he was doing. However careful the permanent officials might be with regard to these confidential matters, they sometimes leaked out. He was reminded that on occasions even Government Reports, marked "Con-
  1074
  fidential," got into the hands of those for whom they were not intended, so that it was not beyond the bounds of possibility that, quite innocently on the part of the officials, some of those special secrets that were supplied in this way to the Board of Trade might come out. Under these circumstances he saw no reason why the Bill should not be recommitted. The right hon. Gentleman said that if the hon. Member thought he could improve the Bill he would have an: opportunity on Report stage. It was difficult to make improvements on the Report stage, because when an Amendment was brought forward on Report it was usually received with scant courtesy by the House, who did not understand it, whereas in Committee the mover of an Amendment could, after hearing the arguments, rise in his place, point out where the misunderstanding arose, and if it was a reasonable one carry his Amendment. The President of the Board of Trade himself was a great exponent of the merits of debate in Committee. On many occasions when the right hon. Gentleman sat upon the Opposition side of the House, below the gangway, he had been known to rise in Committee and make a speech on an Amendment, and on more than one occasion after hearing the discussion to rise and make a second speech in order to explain the meaning of the first. He thought therefore the right hon. Gentleman ought to have encouraged his follower in this Motion. There was no violent hurry for the Bill. For many years we had been without a census of production in this country; the Bill would not come into force until 1908, so there would be plenty of time to pass it even if it were deferred till next session. As, however, there was going to be very great interference with trade and commerce under this Bill they ought to give the matter every possible consideration before passing it. Every rule and regulation should be carefully weighed and considered by men conversant with the particular trades or businesses which the Bill was going to affect. If this obligation was to be put on the trade and commerce of the country it ought to be very carefully examined, and he therefore trusted the House would support the Motion of his hon. friend. He was glad to see hon. Members opposite were beginning to have the courage of their convictions.
  LORD R. CECILsaid he ventured to protest against the tone of the President of the Board of Trade in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman had reproached his hon. friend as though he had taken a course wholely unprecedented and quite unnecessary. He thought in the interests of private Members generally the time had come when a stand should be made against the increasing domination of the Front Bench. In his judgment the Motion was perfectly justified. The Bill was of enormous importance and made an entirely new departure. It was considered upstairs by only a small number of Members, and the details had never been discussed in the House. Indeed, he believed the Second Reading was taken under conditions which prevented any complete discussion of the Bill. It gave enormous powers to a Government Department. It had a great number of detailed provisions, but so far as he understood the Bill—and he had read it with some care—it might be contained in three lines, "The Board of Trade shall take a census of production, and shall do exactly as it likes in taking that census." Almost every clause conferred a power on the Board of Trade to take any action it liked. Undoubtedly the provisions with reference to the taking of the census were of an extremely inquisitorial character. Inquiries were to be addressed to every conceivable class of trader, even to the smallest builder and decorator. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had opposed the suggestion of a religious census on the ground that it was too inquisitorial. That, he admitted, was a matter of conscience, and though he would be the last to say that matters of conscience were not of importance, still, matters of trade were of some importance, too. He thought the Motion for the re committal of this Bill was justifiable, and ought to have been received with greater sympathy and courtesy by the President of the Board of Trade.
  SIR GEORGE DOUGHTYappealed to the House not to accede to the Motion. The last Member of the Government who should be lectured was the President of the Board of Trade, because not only in the Merchant Shipping Bill but through all the stages of this measure the light hon. Gentleman had treated every interest with the greatest
  1076
  conceivable courtesy. If ever there was a measure submitted to the House which had been thoroughly examined and sifts it was the present Bill. Every phase of the measure had received the greatest attention. He was very desirous, as a tariff reformer, of seeing the measure carried into law, and he would have thought that hon. Gentlemen who were free traders would have been equally anxious for its passing. He feared that if they lost the Bill this session they would never get it at all. What they desired to get and what he believed they would succeed in getting by this Bill, was a balance-sheet of the home trade, so that they should know for themselves, on absolutely reliable data, whether or not our home trade was suffering from the present fiscal system. Notwithstanding all our prosperity, poverty seemed to be ever on the increase, and this census would enable the country to form an impartial judgment upon the question. He thanked the President of the Board of Trade, who had throughout treated every interest with the greatest care and consideration, for his courage in facing the question. He appealed to the hon. Member opposite to withdraw his Motion. There was no possibility under the Bill, as it stood, of trade secrets being divulged.
  MR. COURTHOPEsaid that although possibly the Bill was unnecessarily wide in one or two particulars, yet if it were re-committed there would be no chance of its passing into law this year. From every point of view he thought it was desirable that the Bill should become law. Speaking as one who sat on the Grand Committee which studied the Bill, and which thoroughly discussed this matter, he thought it could be very well dealt with on Report stage. The hon. Member for Limehouse spoke about the fines being too heavy. He would like to point out that a great portion of the members of the Grand Committee considered that the fines were not heavy enough. He did not think there was a single member of that Committee, after carefully considering the question, who came to the conclusion that the fines were too heavy. What would be the use of fining a big manufacturing firm a five pound note for making a false Return? It might be worth their while, under

  1077
  certain circumstances, to pay that fine over and over again rather than make an accurate Return. He did not say these circumstances were likely to occur, but they were conceivable. He thought it right that the maximum fine in a Bill of this kind should be as large as possible. He would also like to point out to the hon. Member for Lime-house that his fears as to disclosures which would cause great inconvenience and loss to traders were quite without foundation. If the hon. Gentleman had studied Clause 9. he would have seen that under the clause advisory committees of manufacturers and other interested persons were to be appointed to draw up the forms to be submitted to the various groups of trades. The Bill provided against any questions being asked which might cause the disclosure of any secrets damaging to the traders concerned. However one looked at this Bill there was nothing in it which could not be adequately dealt with on Report stage, and he hoped the House would reject the Motion.
  MR. W. PEARCEasked to be allowed to withdraw his Motion. [Cries of "No."]
  SIR ALBERT SPICERsaid that as a general principle he approved the Bill. He believed it would be a great acquisition if there were an accurate Return of the home trade of this country. He knew that the Chambers of Commerce had generally approved it, and he almost apologised for raising a question at the eleventh hour; but he would not be just to his convictions if he did not tell the House what was in his mind and possibly on the minds of others. This Bill would not create a difficulty for the large firms with staffs, but he was concerned about the tens of thousands of small producers, to whom he was afraid the Bill in its present shape would be a difficulty and an irritation.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEpointed out that there was a provision in the Bill with regard to small traders, and, if his hon. friend did not think that provision sufficiently protective, it was open to him to move an Amendment.
  MR. STUARTsaid he saw no reason whatever for the House refusing to assent to the hon. Gentleman's wish to
  1078
  withdraw his Motion for the recommittal of the Bill inasmuch as it was clear the Report Stage could not be got through now that evening, so that there would be time for the consideration of objections, which was what his hon friend's Motion aimed at securing. The greatest amount of care had been taken by the President of the Board of Trade to meet the objections of those who had approached him. It was evident, from the fragmentary debate which had taken place, that there were other points which the right hon. Gentleman would no doubt endeavour to meet. He felt sure that the courtesy and care with which the President of the Board of Trade had received the difficulties put before him, and the manner in which he had endeavoured to solve them, would make hon. Members feel that whatever points were brought forward would be met in a conciliatory manner.
  MR. H. H. MARKShoped the Bill would not be recommitted, because that course might deprive them of a most valuable measure by which we should be enabled to obtain in the future full and accurate statistics of trade which were of such vital importance to the nation. The ground put forward for recommitting the Bill was that adequate provision had not been made for the protection of trade secrets, but the hon. Member for Grimsby had said that the Committee went fully into that matter, with the result that trade secrets were considered to be sufficiently protected. He joined issue with that contention, because the question was not covered at all by the Bill. He agreed that the exposing of trade secrets by officials was provided for, but they had had conclusive proof recently that important official secrets could be made public by persons other than officials He hoped that some provision would be made against the disclosure of trade secrets by persons other than officials.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he was desirous that this Bill should get through, and he appealed to those Members of the Opposition who had supported the Motion of the hon. Member opposite to withdraw their opposition and allow them to proceed with the discussion of the Bill in detail. The arguments for the recommittal of the measure had

  1079
  entirely disappeard after the speech of the hon. Member for Grimsby.
  Question put, and negatived.
  SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY moved an Amendment to Clause 1 to provide that the census should be taken annually instead of at such intervals as the President of the Board of Trade for the time being might select. He desired that if they were to have a Return of this sort, it should be thoroughly reliable and effective, and those two points could not be secured except by an annual Return. If the fixing of the period were left in the hands of the President of the Board of Trade, pressure might be brought to bear upon him to have the census taken in a particular year. If they desired to make reliable and accurate comparisons they must have more than one year's Return on which to base their calculations. If they wished to see whether the trade of the country was developing the Return ought to be published year by year. If five years was the period fixed it might show a great inflation of trade, whereas during the succeeding five years the trade might be at the bottom of the scale. Consequently neither of those periods would show the natural development of the trade of the country. If the census Return were taken annually, then they would have just as effective figures in regard to home trade as they had in regard to foreign and colonial trade. He was aware that the objection raised to his proposal was that of expense, but everything that was worth having cost something, and if they were going to make this Return in a shoddy sort of way they had better leave it alone all together. He understood that the Government were prepared to set aside funds for this purpose, and he thought that it would cost very little more to make the Return annually. It would be quite easy for the trader to make an annual Return. Upon the ground of effectiveness and reliability he hoped the Return would be made annually. A Resolution in favour of his proposal was nearly carried in the Committee, and he hoped the President of the Board of Trade would be able to insert in the Bill the words he had suggested.
  SIR FREDERICK CAWLEYseconded the Amend-
  1080
  ment. He felt that it might be said by his opponents that the President of the Board of Trade had fixed a date for a certain purpose. If an annual Return were made that difficulty would be got over. He also urged that an annual Return would be much simpler for those concerned. Unless some fixed period was put into the Bill he did not think there would be any confidence in the Return.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page I, line 6, to leave out the words 'subsequently at such intervals,' and insert the words 'and each year following.'"—(Sir George Doughty.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. ASHLEYsaid he could not support the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Great Grimsby. An annual census would undoubtedly entail very considerable expense. His hon. friend had stated that if they were going to do what was right, they should not allow the expense to stand in the way. But there was a limit to expense, and he thought the Government, and especially one like the present which came in on a cry of economy, should think twice or thrice before it accepted an Amendment of this kind, which would add a substantial sum to the Estimates. He also opposed the proposal to have an annual census on the ground that it would cause a considerable amount of trouble to the permanent officials at the Board of Trade who were extremely hard worked. The community at large must be considered. Although, it might not be difficult for firms with large staffs of clerks to furnish Returns annually, this obligation would be hard on small men who would be compelled to spend money in order to get assistance in the preparation of the Returns, and that might be a considerable tax on their profits. He could not agree that a period when the census should be taken should be left to the President of the Board of Trade. He had great confidence in the ability and common sense of the present holder of that office, but this was a matter which would be decided a great deal more by the permanent officials than by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and therefore, before the Bill left the House

  1081
  they should decide when the census was to take place. He should support the proposal of his hon. friend the Member for Hammersmith that the census should be taken not more frequently than five years since the date of the last census.
  MR. CORYsaid there had no doubt been considerable opposition to this Bill in the country on the part of people who thought that they might be required to divulge trade secrets, and that the furnishing of Returns might cause a great deal of trouble. He had no doubt that the Amendments which were agreed to in Committee would, so far as these points were concerned, commend the measure in the eyes of the public generally. When people found that the Returns were not so dreadful as they had feared, there would be less objection to making them. It was better that they should have experience of the working of the Act before they determined how often the census should be taken. He opposed the Amendment.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he had much sympathy with the idea of an annual Return, and did not think it would give much trouble to the trader, who, when he knew the census requirements, would keep his books accordingly. The opinion had been privately expressed to him by men of business that this would benefit many people who kept their books rather loosely at present, as it would help them to know how they themselves stood, whether it helped the nation to know how it stood or not. He did not wish the impression to prevail that the Board of Trade would make the census quinquennially. It ought to be taken often enough for purposes of comparison, and not at such intervals as might give them one census at a time of depression and another at a time of great boom. But he opposed the Amendment because he had the Treasury to deal with, and also because it was desirable to see how the census was going to work, and to give the traders time to realise that they were not going to be asked to disclose trade secrets, and that no catastrophe would follow their answers to Government questions. A reasonable demand had been made in Grand Committee by the noble Lord the Member for the Chorley Division
  1082
  of Lancashire, that after the first experiment the House of Commons should have the opportunity of discussing whether the census should be taken at fixed periods. This opportunity could be afforded by placing the sum required for the next census on the Votes. Probably the census would become biennial. If it were made annually, they must have a great body of officials to tabulate and assimilate results. He was, therefore, not hopeful of having an annual Return for the next few years, but he hoped it would be possible to make it more frequent than every five years.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid they were indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the frank manner in which he had taken them into his confidence. He himself was strongly in favour of the view that whatever period was decided upon should be a fixed period. He would be content with a quinquennial census, but rather than have a census at unfixed periods he would desire an annual one. The President of the Board of Trade had said that it would probably be biennial, and he threw out the suggestion that when the first census and its results had proved to traders and the commercial world that the forms were less inquisitorial than they apparently now anticipated, confidence in the census would be established. The right hon. Gentleman had further suggested that the £60,000 or £70,000, or such other sum as would be required for the census, should be put on the Estimates in order that the House might be able to discuss the subject. The right hon. Gentleman was most anxious to meet the wish of hon. Members on this particular point. What he wanted to point out was that if the necessary sum was placed on the Estimates the responsibility must remain with the Treasury. Moreover, they could not have a sum of £70,000 in nubibus. It must really be brought before the House of Commons in a more concrete and orderly form than had been suggested. So far as he was concerned he was satisfied with the assurance of the President of the Board of Trade, but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman quite realised that unless the Government made up its mind on this point, with the sanction of the Treasury, there would be great pressure put on the President of the Board of Trade either to take or to refrain from taking a census. He did

  1083
  not know why his hon. friend behind him connected this question of a census of production with the question of tariff. If that were to be the case, what a serious responsibility would be placed on the President of the Board of Trade if he refused to grant a census in a particular year, because his opponents— whether Liberal or Conservative, Free Traders or Tariff Reformers—would be sure to say "Oh, you are afraid to take a census." That would destroy the public confidence in the census not only of that particular year but of any previous year. His own opinion was that there should be a census at regular stated intervals, so as to avoid pressure being brought to bear on the President of the Board of Trade or attacks being made on his Party.
  MR. BRIGGsaid that in the Committee upstairs there was a considerable variety of opinion as to the time when the census should be arranged. In his own opinion there was some advantage in the elasticity of the words in the clause which stated that the census was to be taken from time to time. The idea had been suggested that a census should be taken at different times for different trades.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid that the clause read that the census was to be taken from time to time by order of the Treasury. He thought that the plan suggested of a certain sum being placed on the Estimates for a certain period, would not be altogether workable either from the Treasury or the Parliamentary point of view. There were certain Orders which had to lie on the table of the House of Commons for a specified period, and unless objection was taken to them they became law at the end of that period. He thought that that was a method which might be adopted in regard to the census, at any rate for the present until experience had been gained. The right hon. Gentleman might be in a position afterwards to bring in a Bill to fix the term at which the census was to be taken. Personally, he thought a biennial census would be best, but the suggestion he made would leave the question open for the moment.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEthought there was something in the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman had made, but he would have to consider the legal effect of it. A real apprehension was that the President of the Board of Trade might be guided by his views on fiscal and other questions, in fixing a particular year in which the census was to be taken. [Cries of "No, no."] Yes, that was a point which had got to be met. An hon. Gentleman had suggested that the President of the Board of Trade should, immediately after the first experiment was made, fix not the date of the next experiment, but the intervals at which the census should be taken in the future, so that the House might have an opportunity of considering further the whole question of how this census was to be made. He trusted that hon. Members would allow this Amendment to be disposed of now.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEYhoped that his right hon. friend would even now, at the eleventh hour, accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. What was their object in passing this Bill? Was it merely to ascertain the volume and value of production in a certain year? No, the object was to trace the course of production and the course of trade, and the only way to do that effectually was to have the census taken annually. As a matter of fact, that was already done to a certain extent in some of the most important trades in the country—the iron trade, the cotton trade, and the woollen trade—by the officials connected with the trade associations. He would point out that any other course than an annual census might mislead the country. In the present year trade was booming in this country above that of all other countries; and probably next year trade would be quite as good. But would any Member of the House venture to prophesy what would be the trade of 1908? If only a quinquennial census was taken, the trade of 1908, which might be good or bad, would be compared with that of 1913, which again might be good or bad, and the result might be very misleading. What was wanted was to ascertain correctly whether we were progressing in trade

  1085
  and production. Then we might keep our fingers on the pulses of trade and perhaps put an end to the ridiculous discussion which had been going on for two or three years past. He did not think the Bill went too far; in fact, in his opinion, it did not go far enough.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Lloyd-George), put, and agreed to.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

  ACCOMMODATION FOR STRANGERS.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF "WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,)moved, "That this House approves of the arrangements made for the accommodation of strangers under the Reporter's gallery." He said he wished first to apologise to the House for any inconvenience they might have suffered from his ill-timed illness. As he was the principal villain of the piece it was well that he should plead to the indictment which had been launched against him. He must plead both "guilty" and "not guilty." He must plead "guilty" to having introduced a certain amount of re-distribution of seats in that House, Taut probably that would not be sufficient to satisfy some hon. Members. He must however plead "not guilty" to having done this without warning and notice and without the implied authority of the House to make the alteration. This was one of the many provisions that he had made for the convenience of the House, including the change in divisions, lockers, lavatories, and so forth, all of which had been received with favour. All these matters were discussed upon his Estimate in May last, and during that discussion he warned the House as to the changes which he intended to make as regards certain strangers, and he informed the House that he should act in the manner he proposed, unless some protest was made either in the House or to him privately. All that was reported in the Press and also in Hansard. He subsequently mentioned his proposed change to many individual Members on both sides of the House, and from no one of them did he receive a word of protest, but from all of them he
  1086
  received approval of what was regarded by them as a commonsense change. But he was told that some of the younger defenders of our ancient Constitution were exercised in their souls and troubled in their sleep as to whether he had violated the traditions of Parliament by introducing strangers above and within what was called the Bar of the House. He would not venture into that arcana of privilege and precedent. The Bar always seemed to him to be the converse of a well-behaved child: it was a thing of which they hoard much and saw little. There was an anomaly about the Bar, because hon. Gentlemen sitting on the side Benches, although they were obviously behind the Bar were yet for Parliamentary and speaking purposes within the Bar. He dared say that there were some hon. Members who did not know that the side galleries were within the House for speaking purposes, and yet within his recollection the reporters had been allowed to invade those side galleries although they wore within and above the Bar. This had been done without a single protest being uttered. The dark bench behind the Speaker's Chair, affectionately called in the past "The Sleeping Berth," was practically not within the House for speaking purposes, because it was physically or ocularly impossible for Mr. Speaker to call upon any person in that position to address the Chair. He did not know whether Mr. Speaker found it necessary to explore this dark recess with his cocked hat pointing to hon. Members when a "count" was moved. He had taken the action he had done, first because it enabled him to add three seats to the congested district below the gangway, and because it was for the convenience of any Government who occupied the Treasury Bench. It was, he submitted, for the convenience of the majority of the House that this bench should now be set apart for the technical and specialised assistance of Ministers. It was desirable that those expert assistants should be easily available, and that was what his alteration meant. Some hon. Members on the other side, although they thought that the change he had introduced was a good one, considered that his action in carrying it out was autocratic. He was quite prepared to accept any rebuke for his action if it was considered autocratic, but he

  1087
  hoped the House would not reject a good reform simply in order to chastise him. They might censure him or dismiss him in a few months if they would tolerate during that short time his chastened activity. If, however, they now rejected his proposals in regard to this gallery he was sure that they would regret it in the future. He would accept any rebuke in the matter except one based on the ground that he had acted meanly and without warning, and without having acquired what he thought was the assent of the House. He hoped that this explanation on that point would be accepted. He had promised the House that they should have an opportunity of discussing the matter and that was why he had put down this Motion. He would, of course, vote for it, and he hoped that a large majority of the House would support him, but he recognised fully, and the Government recognised, that this was a domestic matter and it was for the House itself to decide it. He would, therefore, leave it an open question and no pressure would be put upon anybody to vote one way or the other, and no Government tellers would be appointed. He did not think he could add anything further in the way of explanation or information, but, as he had said, he left the decision of this important question with confidence to the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House approves of the arrangements made for the accommodation of strangers under the Reporters' Gallery."—(Mr. Harcourt.)
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid the Resolution had been very gracefully proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, whom everyone was glad to see amongst them again in restored health, vigour, and ability. The Resolution, however, did not ask for approval of the alterations that had been made under the Members' Gallery. It struck him that the Resolution clearly ought to ask them to approve of the whole of the alterations which the right hon. Gentleman had made, and he took it that if the House was willing to approve of the alterations as a whole the right hon. Gentleman would not be unwilling that they should do so. If the House intended to accept this Resolution, words ought to be inserted to
  1088
  the effect "that no material alteration henceforth shall be made with regard to the seating of this Chamber without the-authority of this House being first obtained." It ought to be made clear that the ex post facto approval of the House of what had been done, should not create a precedent. The fact that the Motion asked for the approval of the House showed that something had been gained from the right hon. autocrat who had carried out the work. It seemed to him that the House had now to deal with a second-hand Oliver Cromwell, who might in the future not only alter the accommodation for Members but alter the mace or something else. The alteration made involved three separate points. It involved, first, the obstruction of ten seats appropriated to the use of Members of the House; secondly, the introduction of strangers into the House itself; and, thirdly, the obstruction of Members passing through the Aye Lobby. The alteration deprived hon. Members of half the privilege they had always enjoyed through the courtesy of Mr. Speaker and the Sergeant-at-Arms of admitting distinguished strangers to the seats under the gallery of which there used to be eighteen and of which there were now only nine. The ten seats which the right hon. Gentleman had cut off from the House had hitherto been appropriated to the use of Members and had almost always been in use. A low wooden barricade had been erected round them, and a door cut in the wall opening into the Aye Lobby, a piece of which had been railed off to guide strangers into these seats. The railing round these seats was so low that any hon. Member could vault it, and it was possible for an. hon. Member to get into the Aye Lobby after the doors were locked by walking up three steps, and vaulting the rail. In fact several Members had entered the Aye Lobby, under those circumstances, in that way. The seats were now appropriated to the use of private secretaries and others who could assist Ministers During the Plural Voting Bill they were occupied by some wirepullers who no doubt were assisting the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. HARCOURT: The hon. Member must permit me at once to say there is not the slightest foundation for that statement.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDexpressed his pleasure that the right hon. Gentleman was in a position to contradict that statement.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid the right hon. Gentleman had stated that what he said upon the Estimates with regard to this question would be a justification for what he had done. He (Mr. Rutherford) had looked up the discussion on the Estimates and he found that instead of the right hon. Gentleman's statement being a justification it was quite the contrary. There was no item put down upon the Estimates to provide for this change, and the right hon. Gentleman did not state that he was going to carry out a work for which there was no Vote and no authority. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he would not contemplate the alterations unless they would have the effect of seating twenty people. In the same debate the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "He would be very loth to touch a building which in many ways was perfectly suitable for its purpose."
  And he went on to say that the alterations suggested would involve an expenditure of money which must receive Parliamentary sanction. The alterations adumbrated by the right hon. Gentleman were not those carried out, and moreover, there was no Vote taken for any such alterations. His opinion was that this was an obstruction to the Members of the House. According to Erskine May, obstructions to any Members were breaches of privileges, and technically the taking away of these seats and the erection of a barricade were obstructions, and therefore breaches of privilege. If the right hon. Gentleman could take away without authority ten seats, he could logically take away 110. There was authority in the Journals of the year 1887 to show that anything which interfered with any Member's coming to, or going from, or sitting in this House in discharge of his duties, was an obstruction and a breach of privilege. As to
  1090
  the contention that these seats were not in the House, he would reply that no one could remember a period when such was the case. He had been able to find no authority defining the limits of this House itself, but Standing Orders were passed on the 7th March, 1888, and on that date it appeared that the ten seats in question were in the House. How could the Standing Orders be understood, enforced, or obeyed if the House to which they undoubtedly referred was capable of being altered without the consent of the House itself? The authority which made the Standing Orders could alone alter them. The conclusion forced upon him was that in making an unauthorised alteration the Standing Orders had been broken, and a breach of the privilege of Members committed. The remedy was that the right hon. Gentleman should submit to the decision of the House, and he took it that the right hon. Gentleman, by his Motion, intended to do so. But until the authority was given, the right hon. Gentleman should admit that he had committed a breach of the privileges. The excuse that these seats were on the Government side was no reply at all. Regarding the question of introducing strangers above the Bar without authority, Standing Order 89 read as follows —
  "No Member of this House shall presume to bring any stranger into any part of the House or Gallery appropriated to the Members of this House whilst the House or Committee of the Whole House is sitting."
  Standing Order 90 dealt with the same subject, which was also referred to on page 335 of Erskine May's book. It was obvious from these that it was never contemplated that strangers should be found in such a position as was now invaded. Regulations did not provide for such a contingency, because it was never in any way contemplated. It was obvious, however, that the right hon. Gentleman had broken Standing Order 89 by presuming to introduce strangers into a part of the House hitherto exclusively reserved for Members. It was very inconvenient to many Members that strangers should be found in that part of the Chamber. During the last few weeks it had been impossible for Members to exchange communications behind Mr. Speaker's Chair, as had been the practice for many years, because observations made there

  1091
  could now be overheard by strangers. Not only was it very inconvenient to Members that strangers should be found in that part of the House, but it was also inconvenient that, to get there, the strangers should have to pass through parts of the building where strangers ought not to be found. These ten seats had been used for many years by tired, elderly, and retiring Members. They could there seek refuge from the heat of debate and the glare of the light. Formerly there were eighteen seats reserved for distinguished strangers and special people, but that number had been reduced to nine. The reduction had taken place at a time when every possible inch in the Chamber was occupied, and hundreds of strangers were being turned away every day. The present was not an opportune time for taking away seats in this House. To summarise his objections they were, first, that ten seats had been taken away, a barricade erected which caused an obstruction in the House, and a breach of privilege committed; secondly, strangers had been introduced above the Bar contrary to the Standing Orders; and, thirdly, half the available space for distinguished strangers under the clock had been taken away unlawfully. Even if this Motion was adopted he thought some supplemental words should be added stating that no further alterations in the arrangements of the House should be made without the consent of the House being sought and obtained in a lawful way.
  MR. DALZIELsaid there was an acrimonious note throughout the remarks of the last speaker which made it impossible for hon. Members sitting on the Ministerial side of the House to support him. The hon. Member for West Derby had alluded to the First Commissioner of Works as an autocrat in this matter. Although he (Mr. Dalziel) did not approve of the right hon. Gentleman's action, he would be the last person to associate himself with any such suggestion as that. None of the predecessors of the present First Commissioner had in so short a time done more for the comfort of Members, and none were more popular. They saw indications of the new broom in the lockers which had been provided, in the new arrangement for taking divisions, and in almost every corner of the House.
  1092
  But a Minister ought not to assume that a remark made in Committee of Supply, in a small House, and no objection taken, was to be regarded as implying the general consent of the House. He thought it important to guard against the possible action of a Minister who might be tyrannical assuming an authority which the House had not given. Besides assuming that he had the general consent of the House, the only other reason which the right hon. Gentleman gave was that the change would be for the convenience of the Government, and he rightly stated that the Government of the day was practically the House, because the private Member had really ceased to exist. What advantage were the Government to get? The only advantage was that they would be nearer their private secretaries and the heads of departments. He did not think that was a very strong reason, because a Minister ought to be fully acquainted with all the work of his department. In case they wished to consult the leading man in his department on some question brought suddenly without notice, almost every Minister had a private secretary who sat behind him and applauded everything he said. The main duty of a Minister's private secretary used to be to run to the other gallery where the heads of departments sat, and bring back the required information. He did not think that more than three heads of departments would ever be required in the House at the same time, and he would like to know what was going to be done with the other seats. The benches under the gallery were now empty, and the seats were lost to the House. He thought it would have been much wiser if the Resolution they were now considering had been passed before the alteration was made. He would like to know if Members would have the right to go and sit in those seats? If they were still to have that right some of their objections might be met. He thought they were right in protesting against the Government's doing this without the direct authority of the House. He protested against those who were not Members of the House actually sitting amongst the Members. The Motion, no doubt, would be carried, but it would be carried, not on its merits, but because of the popularity of the First Commissioner.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid this was a matter which did not affect any particular Party or section of Members. It was a question which affected the House of Commons as a whole. As one who had been a working Member of the House for a long time he would like to say that he entirely concurred with the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken with reference to the action of the First Commissioner of Works in providing for the convenience of Members. During the twenty-six years he had been a Member of the House he had known no Commissioner of Works who in so short a time had done more for the convenience of Members, and in view of that admitted fact he thought it would have been a graceful recognition of the action of the right hon. Gentleman if those hon. Gentlemen who did not entirely approve of what had been done had abstained from raising the kind of criticism which had been heard this evening. Two grounds of objection had been taken. First of all, it was said that the Commissioner of Works had deprived hon. Members of ten seats. That was manifestly untrue. The First Commissioner of Works had given in exchange for ten seats thirteen seats, and therefore that objection fell to the ground altogether. An hon. Gentleman opposite had stated that his objection was not so much to the fact that a change had been made as to the fact that the Minister who made it had acted without the sanction of the House. The hon. Gentleman said that, if this was condoned, a Tory First Commissioner of Works in the future might say during Committee of Supply that there was not adequate accommodation for distinguished strangers, and if no objection was taken he might during the recess provide more accommodation for distinguished strangers by curtailing the accommodation for Members of the House. What had been done in this case could not be a precedent for that, because the right hon. Gentleman had not curtailed the accommodation for Members of the House. He had as a matter of fact increased the accommodation for Members. The other point was this. It was said that the rights of the House had been invaded because officials belonging to the various Departments who used to be accommodated at one end of the House were now accommodated at
  1094
  the other. That seemed to him an absurdity. If there was any attempt made by any Government or any official improperly to introduce officials or strangers into the House he would be amongst the first to protest. He reminded the House of an occasion when Mr. Speaker Brand introduced into the House a shorthand writer and placed him in the Members' Gallery next to that of the reporters. He did so for the purpose of getting an accurate report of observations made by the Irish Members. The introduction of the shorthand writer was instantly taken notice of by Mr. Parnell, and a strong protest was raised, and notwithstanding the fact that the Irish Party, against whom it was supposed that this action was taken, had in those days few friends in any part of the House, the feeling of the House was so strong that the official was instantly withdrawn. If anything of that kind were attempted now he would be amongst the first to protest against it. But was it not ludicrous to pretend that the private secretary of a Minister or a permanent official brought in to assist, his chief in the conduct of debate was violating some great tradition and right of the House when he was transferred from one end of the House to the other? He had on all occasions been ready to support the rights of private-Members. The hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs seemed to think that it was an invasion of the rights of private Members that a Minister should be near a private secretary or an official. He himself was one of the private Members who catechised Ministers, and especially Ministers from Ireland, and he wished that Ministers should be in a position to give him as much information as possible. It was impossible for any Minister to carry in his brain every detail of every matter connected with his Department. He was anxious that a Minister should be in as close touch as could be arranged, without interference with the rights of the House of Commons, with the permanent officials, and manifestly it was much more convenient that Ministers should be able to consult them behind the Speaker's Chair than at the other end of the Chamber. From that point of view, as a private Member, he rejoiced at this change. He entirely objected from the aesthetic point of view, and on other grounds, to an obstruction which had

  1095
  been placed in the entrance to the "Aye" lobby. It was a structure something like a pulpit, and he thought it was entirely unnecessary.
  MR. HARCOURTsaid there were structural reasons for what had been done. There were ventilating flues which required to be preserved, and therefore it was not possible to make the staircase in the wall.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he could not follow the explanation. Of course, if there were structural reasons he accepted the statement, but even then the right hon. Gentleman was not bound to build a big door with a big balustrade around the door. It was a great obstruction, and from the aesthetic point of view a great injury to the whole appearance of the Lobby. Speaking generally, he thought the change which had been made was an admirable improvement. He did not think it infringed in the smallest degree any right or privilege of Members. He sincerely hoped that if this Motion went to a division, the House, by an overwhelming majority, would mark its sense of gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for the many improvements he had made.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD (Somersetshire, Wellington)said he wished to say a few words, not from a Party, but from a purely House of Commons point of view. He expressed to the First Commissioner of Works their gratitude for the many improvements he had carried out. Without going into the merits of the question as to whether strangers should be on the bench under the Reporter's Gallery, he thought it would have been better if the sanction of the House had first of all been obtained. The House was very jealous of its privileges, and he was quite certain that if the proposal had been put before the House a most favourable reception would have been given to it. He asked whether the seats referred to were still the property of the Members of the House? He thought they ought to be. He held that every seat in. the House should be open to Members in times of pressure, such as was experienced on the Second Reading of the Home Rule Bill of 1893. It would be an infringement of the liberties of Members
  1096
  if on such an occasion permanent officials were to occupy the gallery to the right of the Chair, to the exclusion of Members. How did the officials obtain access to the gallery? Was this a latch-key question? Did they come in at the door behind Mr. Speaker's Chair, or by some other access? If the Government required the assistance of their permanent advisers in carrying their measures, why should not the Opposition be allowed to have seats for their advisers? He was sure the Prime Minister, with his sense of fair play, would give that proposal a businesslike consideration. The House of Commons was jealous of its privileges and admired what the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had done for their comfort; but he feared that in this case the right hon. Gentleman was in some sense guilty of poaching first and taking out his license afterwards. The right hon. Gentleman knew quite well what the result would be if he were taken up before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction; he would be punished for poaching, and afterwards by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for not taking out his license. He thought he should vote against the Motion on principle, because the right hon. Gentleman should have taken out his license first. As regarded the future he hoped the Prime Minister would consider his suggestion of giving equality of opportunity to the Opposition as well as to the Government of consulting their advisers.
  MR. HARCOURTsaid in reply to the right hon. Baronet who asked whether Members would still be able to use the seats in times of pressure, that Members had access to every gallery and a right to sit in any gallery they chose to occupy. He had never considered the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet that Members should have the power of eviction of occupants of the galleries— even of the Peers' gallery—but if the right hon. Baronet thought this likely to be necessary or' desirable in the future he would be willing to consult him on the subject. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was no access for private secretaries or permanent officials to this particular gallery by latchkey or except by the ordinary process. As to the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet that the advisers of the Opposition should be accommodated

  1097
  in the gallery he thought that that would be most undesirable.
  VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid he was one of the humblest and warmest admirers of the right hon. Gentleman, who he hoped would be present in the House for the next thirty years to defend his policy. It seemed to him that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was more or less made from the Government point of view. One of the objects of the new arrangements was to afford information to Ministers with a minimum of trouble. To that he took no exception. His objection to the alteration made by the First Commissioner of Works was that the right hon. Gentleman had not first obtained the permission of the House. He was not inclined to accept the speech of the right hon. Gentleman as to the utilty or necessity of the changes which had been made. The First Commissioner of Works had said Government legislation was most desired by the House, although that statement was cheered in a very lukewarm way by the supporters of the Government. They had other legislation than Government legislation, and good examples of that were the Land Tenure Bill and the Town Tenants' Bill. He was the last person to say that Ministers should not have communication with their private secretaries or permanent officials. They would save a good deal of foolscap and typewritten papers. But why not go a little further and replace the immaculately dressed row of amateur private secretaries behind Ministers by more useful professional private secretaries?
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDONsaid that he would have preferred that the House should remain as it was, but he knew that the front Benches had been very anxious for these alterations. He thought it was not for the dignity of the House that a Minister like the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order to answer a Question should have to walk right down the House in order to get certain figures from the permanent official. He remembered during Lord Palmerston's administration the bitter experience he had of the inconvenience of the old arrangement when he had to be at the call of the Minister to
  1098
  whom he was private secretary. He was very glad, having some recollection of his earlier days, that the officials would have an easier task than they had in times past. Very often the unfortunate private secretary found all the seats under the gallery filled up by the sons of peers. He hoped that the First Commissioner would take steps to secure that the door behind the Speaker's Chair was always open.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid that one could not but conceive that the Government in putting down this particular Motion at this particular time did so without the intention that it should be seriously discussed or that a full opportunity should be given for that discussion. He thought the House would require in this case, no les than in other cases, what might be called affirmative justification. The right hon. Gentleman, and he did not say this in any invidious sense, took a great advantage of the popularity to which he was born, and which he had won. Amongst other things, the right hon. Gentleman's arrangement of divisions was a stroke of genius, but the arguments in favour of the change in this case had been more of negative than affirmative justification. He agreed that by the new way of taking divisions the right hon. Gentleman had multiplied Members' liberties by three in quantity as well as adding many things most attractive in quality. But they must not be led away by this. The right hon. Gentleman had claimed that he announced the changes in a speech on Supply; but, as a matter of fact, until he saw the changes in material existence he had no idea of the changes that were to be made. It was said that an equivalent had been given. Perhaps, as far as quantity went, Members gained a small advantage; but in the matter of quality there had been no equivalent at all, because in the seats newly given to Members it was difficult to hear debates. But why should the House be in a position of having to ask the value of any equivalent? The solitary reason given for making the change was that it was desirable that Cabinet Ministers' private secretaries should be brought physically nearer in debate. Men quite as great as they got on quite well without such assistance, and if he might refer to his personal experience when in

  1099
  office, he would say that he frequently stood in the most dire need of assistance of this kind. He had also frequently to obtain it for others in circumstances which made it awkward to be seen obtaining it. There were crises in which he had to do without the facts. He did without them. That meant that as regarded the policy of his replies he threw himself back on his own intuition. And whence were these intuitions inspired? They were inspired by the surrounding atmosphere of the House, drawn straight from the pulse of the people. It would shortly mean that permanent officials and private secretaries would become practically actual participants in debate. It was even whispered already that Ministers communicated with their private secretaries telegraphically by looks. On the whole he thought it was better perhaps for Ministers to be able to say on occasion that the information desired was not for the moment within access. Why was this being done? When he entered this House nothing was borne into his mind more than the sanctity of the few places which had been left for the Members behind the Speaker's Chair. He was taught that if there was one space which was a holy of holies it was the space in the lobby behind Mr. Speaker's Chair. This was the holy of holies which was being invaded. ["Oh."] He did not care for the interruptions of hon. Gentlemen who had never had occasion to use that space. This proposal would violate the sanctity which attached to the House and to that part of it, and was in contravention of the spirit of the old regulation that strangers should not be brought within the bar, and that at all events at one end of the House a place should be reserved for Members themselves. The negative reasons that Ministers afforded for what had been done could not, he thought, hold the balance against the practical inconvenience caused to Members.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs)thought the House was to be congratulated and deserved to be commended for the perfectly good-humoured manner in which this question had been discussed. He did not remember another occasion in which the serious business of the House
  1100
  had been interrupted in order to discuss a matter of such relatively small importance as to where strangers might be accommodated with the greatest convenience. The Government, however, had agreed to give an opportunity of discussing this matter, and he was glad that it had been so good-temperedly conducted. There was first of all the question affecting the conduct of his right hon. friend, and whether he was justified in making this change without the express directions of the House. As very few hon. Members were present to listen to his right hon. friend at the beginning of the debate, he might remind the House that his right hon. friend said that if he had transgressed in what he had done, if he had been mistaken in assuming that the silence of the House meant consent when last summer he informed them what he intended to do, he could only express his regret and hope that the censure should fall upon him and that the good thing that he had done would be left unchanged. His right hon. friend was a brave man, and the only feeling he had about this question was that his right hon. friend had a dreadful time before him if he was to keep up in future years the character and reputation which he had achieved for himself during the short time that he had been in office. All those who had been engaged in the transaction of public business in office would agree that it was most inconvenient that the officials who came to assist Ministers in the transaction of business should be placed in the remotest part of the House. Those officials were there to assist a Minister with information of which he was not for the moment in possession— information not for himself, but for the House. Surely it was desirable they should be near at hand to give him assistance. He had often noticed with some degree of amusement a Minister when he found himself without full knowledge of a measure try to invent some way in which he could complacently go to the man who could assist him. He remembered that Sir Michael Hicks Beach, to call him by his old House of Commons name, always walked down the House without any concealment; but he had seen Ministers more modest or perhaps more conceited, look at their watches and go out with a great air behind Mr. Speaker's chair and re-appear below the bar. It was quite true that Members

  1101
  used to recline on these Benches. He used to watch one Member during the greater part of his Parliamentary life on the other side who would pose himself in a corner after the exciting business was disposed of, divest himself of some article of apparel—his boots, for instance; he did not know that it went any further— put his feet up on the bench, and sleep the sleep of the just. But that was hardly the purpose, he thought, for which they should reserve places. His right hon. friend was the first Minister who had had the courage to make this change. The question was, was it a good thing to do? He was certain the change would commend itself to the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that while painfully conscious of an unusual and embarrassing amount of agreement with the right hon. Gentleman, he was rejoiced to be able at the outset to pick a small quarrel with him, which was more in accordance with his own position and his ordinary function within these walls. He did not agree with the right hon. gentleman that the forcible appropriation of certain benches, considered from time immemorial as belonging to the House, was a subject not eminently worthy of a few hours' discussion, and he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had used such grudging words in giving the House these few hours. It was unfortunate that these benches had to be given up to another purpose, even although the previous purposes had included sleeping; and he was not sure whether, if all-night sittings were to continue, it might not be part of the future duty of the right hon. Gentleman whose conduct was in question to provide cubicles somewhere in the House where Members might take those moments of necessary repose which were apparently required to enable them to carry on their public duties as auditors of and partakers in debate. Before coming to the essential merits of the question he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House whether he did not think some arrangement might be made by which upon nights when it was not necessary that experts should attend the debates Members might be able to revert to their ancient freehold.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid perhaps he might be allowed to answer the point, which was also raised by the right hon. Member for the Wellington Division of Somersetshire, and to say that there was nothing to prevent hon. Members sitting in any of the galleries.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURdid not think the observation covered the whole case. He thought it would be regarded by hon. Members as rather a serious infringement of the privileges of the outside public if Members of the House were to occupy at the beginning of the sitting all the benches under the gallery, which were invariably given up to strangers, and all the seats above the clock, which were given up to Ambassadors, Peers, and other distinguished strangers. All that he pleaded for was that the seats under consideration should not be given up when not required by experts for the specific purpose of giving information to the members of the Government. He admitted that the suggestion he had informally thrown out did not touch the main question raised in this debate, which was whether the expert advisers, whom everyone admitted ought to find a place in this House, should be accommodated at the end behind Mr. Speaker's Chair, or under the gallery at the other end. On such a subject it was only natural that those who held office or had held office should hold a different set of opinions from those who were only critics and spectators of the agonies of officials. Personally he took the view that in modern days, when criticism was pressed hard, when it was the recognised business of an Opposition to put the most embarrassing conundrums they could to those who carried on the Government of the country, it was absolutely necessary that Ministers who had to defend Bills or Estimates should be able to obtain in the most convenient form the expert advice which they required. It was not possible for any Minister to be able to answer every Question put to him; and, indeed, he would go further and say that a Minister would not be doing his duty to the country if he were to devote all the hours he could spare from his official business to getting up these small details which did not

  1103
  touch broad questions of policy, although they formed, necessarily and rightly, so large a part of their administrative work. There was then the question of the inconvenience of Ministers in having to go round to the place in which the experts formerly sat.
  MR. DALZ1EL: They have done it for 700 years.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not know that Estimates had come before Parliament for that length of time. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had said that these things were not required by their forefathers, and asked why should they be required now. His reply to that argument was that the whole character of Parliamentary fighting had altered within living memory, and now it was desirable that the expert advisers of the Government should be available as quickly as possible. Not many years ago the great fights in this House took place chiefly upon Second or Third Headings, but that was changed, and the debates in Committee and on Report now were of a character both in regard to length and strenuousness which was never dreamt of by our grandfathers, and had greatly increased during his own experience of thirty years. He did not see that there was any chance of that tendency diminishing. An Opposition was bound to criticise in detail and put the most embarassing questions to the Government. He thought the present Government, by adopting Bills which they had not framed, had augmented the difficulties. The expert advisers had to advise on something which they did not do and never contemplated doing, and he was informed, though he had not seen it himself; that there had been signs, Marconi telegrams, passing between the front bench and the technical advisers under the gallery which he did not think ought to be allowed. It ought to be understood that no gesticula-
  1104
  tions, no indications of approval or disapproval, ought to be conveyed from the gallery of the House. He believed his right hon. friend the late Home Secretary, the predecessor of the present First Commissioner, always desired to see the change in question or something of the kind carried out. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke to him privately about it, he said he thought it a change for the better so far as Government interests were concerned and it was for the advantage of everybody that Government business should be properly carried out. It was for the advantage of everybody that the Government of the day should do their work well, and it was very difficult indeed to do Government work well. It was very laborious, involved great responsibility, and an immense amount of detail which was never known to the public. It was not the work in this House which wore out Ministers, but the work they had to do outside the House. When he remembered how severe was the criticism of every Opposition, and bearing in mind the strain and difficulties of modern legislation and administration, he thought the responsible Minister was entitled in common fairness to every advantage he could have. On that broad ground he thought the right hon. Gentleman was justified in carrying out this change, and he did not really know whether his methods were open to criticism or not. The only question he touched upon was the broad question whether they should or should not give to the Minister in charge of the Estimates or the Minister conducting a difficult Bill through Committee or through the Report stage all the assistance he was entitled to and had a right to ask for. He could not vote against the right hon. Gentleman, or express a condemnation he did not feel for action which, whether carried out in the best way or not, was in its main lines for the advantage, not of one

  1105
  Party or another, but of the conduct of business as a whole.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid he would make no apology for saying a few words on this matter., as an old Member of the House. He felt deeply on the subject, and he believed that feeling was shared by a large majority of the old Members on both sides. Although the Motion of his right hon. friend would probably be carried, he was convinced that the decision would not be approved by the mature judgment of the House. He concurred in the expressions of gratitude which had been expressed on both sides of the House for the services which had been rendered to the House by the First Commissioner of Works. He felt that in the matter they were now discussing the right hon. Gentleman had acted with an honest and sincere desire to serve the interests not only of the Government, but of the House at large. The Leader of the Opposition had exposed the proposal to a most merciless analysis. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that nothing could be more objectionable than that there should be any kind of signalling arrangement between the front bench and the gallery where the officials were accommodated. But of what value then would be the change? Nothing more than that a Minister instead of having to walk fifteen yards to one gallery would only have to walk five yards to the other gallery, the saving of time resulting from the now arrangement being about twenty seconds. The Prime Minister had pointed out how exceedingly inconvenient the former arrangement was when Ministers had to consult officials on questions of detail. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in his long experience of the House he could point to a single instance whore the House, the Government, or the country had suffered thereby from the lack of assistance from the permanent officials? On the contrary, there had been occasions
  1106
  —and recently there was one very notable instance—where Ministers had suffered from too large an amount of assistance from permanent officials. The recent instance to which he referred had been the subject of severe animadversions. He believed the real cause of the change was that some subordinate Members of the Government felt a certain amount of shame when they were seen walking down the House to consult officials. Every Minister who had not got up his facts had to consult the officials at the other end of the House, and the late Mr. Gladstone, the greatest Parliamentarian that ever lived, held the view that there was nothing more subversive of the interests of Ministers than that the permanent officials should have been brought to the end of the House. He really was unable to conceive how it could be in the interest of the independence of the House that they should have permanent officials en evidence to the extent proposed. In France there was a system whereby the permanent official was allowed to come into the Chambre and state his views on a Bill proposed by a Minister. The proposal now under consideration was a stop in the direction of the permanent officials discharging the duties of the Ministry. The protection of the British people against the bureaucracy of the permanent officials was the purpose of the House of Commons. The space proposed to be given for the accommodation of officials belonged to Members. He could conceive no more justification for placing the permanent officials in that place than for placing them in the seats immediately behind the Treasury Bench. He had a great regard for the interests and the dignity of this Assembly. He wanted to point out that there was an unnecessary amount of space given to these benches. He had ample authority for the statement that it was not the officials who were in attendance on Ministers who filled the seats, but their friends, There was no occasion for permanent officials to be present in

  1107
  the House that night, unless those who had a personal interest in the matter. He had no doubt in his own mind that these seats would be used for other purposes. [Laughter and cries of "Vote."] His friends made merry about Members making use of the seats for the purpose of slumber when they were weary, but he was bound to say that he had seen right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both the Front Benches asleep, and he saw no reason why Members, who had often to sit up so long, should not avail themselves of the comparative obscurity of that part of the House for a gentle doze. He knew that many hon Members would vote for the Motion out of personal respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but he felt he held a higher duty to the House than to support a Minister out of personal respect. He trusted that the Motion would be rejected without involving the slightest slur on the right hon. Gentleman who was no doubt animated by the sole desire to serve the interests of the House and the country.
  MR BYLESsaid he was very loath to give a silent vote on this occasion. It might seem rash that after the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Irish Party had expressed their views on this matter, he should say anything about it. But he wanted to recall to the memory of the House that the First Commissioner of Works had told them that there was to be an open vote on the Motion. The First Commissioner of Works seemed to think that some hon. Members wished to chastise him, and it was because of that that he wished to say a few words. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the comforts that he had conferred on Members of the House, and he regretted very much that he should be compelled to vote against him. However, he was not one who walked out of the House when the division bell
  1108
  was rung. He always voted "Aye" or "No." They were always complaining that this House was not big enough for the number of Members, and that there were fewer seats than the number of Members. Yet the right hon. Gentleman had reduced the number. He did not mean seats where Members could sit, but seats from which Members who had won their position at the general election had a right to address the House. His second objection to the new gallery was that it was far too near that portion of the House where important conversations and negotiations which ought not to be overheard took place. Of course they had all heard of the right hon. Gentlemen who quarrelled across the table and then went and made bargains behind the Speaker's Chair. He did not think that those arrangements should be overheard in the House. It had also been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition that signs might pass, and it was easy to see how this sort of prompter's box might lend itself to communications not quite legitimate, and that assistance might be rendered which ought not to be. The change had been made with the best intentions and with the most absolute belief that it had the authority of the House, but he hoped the House would come to the conclusion that the change was made without its authority. He thought the sanction of the House should first have been obtained in a formal manner, and on that ground and because he did not think that the change was an advantage, he should go into the lobby against his right hon. friend.
  MR. HARCOURTsaid that the Government thoroughly agreed with the views expressed by the Leader of the Opposition that the seats should only be used by officials in the ordinary sense of the word, assisting Ministers

  1109
  when they were wanted, but that at other times they should be available for Members when the officials were not needed.
  Question put.
  The House divided:— Ayes, 275; Noes, 63. (Division List No. 432).

  AYES

  Agnew, George William

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Crossley, William J.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.)

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Astbury, John Meir

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hudson, Walter

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Delany, William

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Dillon, John

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Beale, W. P.

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Joyce, Michael

  Beaumont, Hn. W.C.B.(Hexham)

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Kelley, George D.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp't)

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford.)

  Berridge, H. T. D.

  Elibank, Master of

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Bertram, Julius

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Bethell, Sir J.H.(Essex, Romf'rd)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lamb, Ernest K. (Rochester)

  Billson, Alfred

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lambert, George

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lamont, Norman

  Boland, John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Ferens, T. R.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Brace, William

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Branch, James

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Levy, Maurice

  Brigg, John

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Brodie, H. C.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lough, Thomas

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

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lundon, W.

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Bull, Sir William James

  Gill, A. H.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Ginnell, L.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Glendinning, R. G.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Grant, Corrie

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Cairns, Thomas

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  M'Crae, George

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Gulland, John W.

  M'Kean, John

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor, C. W.

  Gywnn, Stephen Lucius

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hall, Frederick

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Maddison, Frederick

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Clough, William

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

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

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Meagher, Michael

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Menzies, Walter

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Corbett, CH.(Sussex, E. Grinst'd)

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

  Mond, A.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Cox, Harold

  Hervey, F. W. F.(Bury, S. Edm'd)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hignam, John Sharp

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Crean, Eugene

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hogan, Michael

  Murnaghan, George

  Crombie, John William

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Murray, James

  Nolan, Joseph

  Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Norman, Sir Henry

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

  Taylor John W. (Durham)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  O'Brien, Kenda1 (Tipperary Mid)

  Roberts, Chas. H. (Lincoln)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Tomkinson, James

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Verney, F. W.

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Robinson, S.

  Wadsworth, J.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Walters, John Tudor

  O'Malley, William

  Rose, Charles Day

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Runciman, Walter

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Seddon, J.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Shackleton, David James

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Wiles, Thomas

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

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Radford, G. H.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Winfrey, R.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Young, Samuel

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Brampton Gurdon and Mr. Paul.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Rees, J. D.

  Summerbell, T.

  NOES.

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthea)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Doughty, Sir George

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fell, Arthur

  Percy, Earl

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Pickersgill Edward Hare

  Balcarres, Lord

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Forster, Henry William

  Smith, Abell, (Hertford, East)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Turnour, Viscount

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Kekewich, Sir George

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

  Cave, George.

  Keswick, William

  Younger, George

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Liddell, Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Watson Rutherford and Mr. Claude Hay.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Craig, Captain Jas. (Down, E.)

  Moore, William

  Resolved, "That this House approves of the arrangements made for the accommodation of strangers under the Reporters' Gallery."
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of the 4th August last.
  Adjourned at six minutes alter Eleven o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Blairgowrie, Rattray, and District Gas and Water Order Confirmation Bill. To be printed. (No. 215.)
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against; of inhabitants of parishes of Llanbedrgoch and Pentraeth. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIES ANNUAL.
  No. 510. St. Vincent (Report for 1905–1906).
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
  Return for the month of October 1906. Presented (by Command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF DURHAM).
  Order made by the council of the county of Durham altering certain polling districts in the Chester-le-Street Parliamentary Division. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  House again in Committee (according to order).
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the chair.]
  Debate resumed on Motion, proposed by Earl Cawdor, to leave out Clause 26:—
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid that, after the exhaustive, lucid, and eloquent speech of his noble friend Earl Cawdor in moving the rejection of the clause, it was hardly necessary to detain
  942
  their Lordships at any length in supporting the Amendment. He felt that to the mind of every impartial person the proposal contained in this clause must appear as one of the most extraordinary ever submitted to their Lordships' House.
  At the close of the debate the previous evening, the noble Earl, Lord Dunraven made a speech in which he seemed to consider that a scheme of devolution for Wales would be an improvement in the system of government in that country. He did not wonder at the action of the noble Earl, for he had endeavoured to introduce a devolution scheme in Ireland which had been denounced by every true Unionist. The recent by-election in North Armagh had proved how cordially devolutionists were hated there. His noble friend's devolution scheme had been disapproved, if not denounced, even by the Nationalist Party. Now that the project of devolution had failed in Ireland, the noble Earl was attempting to turn his hand to the subject of devolution in Wales; but in his judgment the proposal to establish a Welsh Council for Education was absolutely impracticable. The scheme was an impossible one, because if they created a Council for Education in Wales, he asked why they should not create a council in Wales for the purposes of local government or of agriculture.
  He had frequently racked his brains, but confessed that it was not easy to understand why the question should be raised of different treatment in regard to education for Wales as compared with other parts of the United Kingdom. In examining this subject he had come to the conclusion that the only reason why this scheme had been brought forward was in order to reward those dissentients who had been led by Mr. Lloyd-George in their opposition to the legal administration of the Act of 1902. He was at a loss to understand what other ground there could be for the introduction of the clause. If such a clause was to be the reward of illegality in making the law of the land unworkable, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Cabinet were raising a question which must have serious, and indeed disastrous, results. The persons who had promoted the scheme of a Welsh

  943
  education council were those who had fostered the Welsh revolt against the observance of the law in Wales during the past few years.
  Personally, he had no belief in the plea that this clause had been inserted in the Bill as a reward for the educational efficiency of Wales. Lord Rendel, who spoke with great authority on Welsh matters, had alluded the previous evening | to the fact that the Welsh people were very jealous with regard to the promotion of education, and he went on to say—
  "Next to the passion for religion was the passion for education in Wales. That passion knew no difference of Party or sect. The aim it sought was the unification of education, the establishment of what was called the ladder of education, leading from the primary school to the University, so that the intelligence of the people, the most valuable asset of Wales, might be afforded opportunities for cultivation and development."
  He did not think that anyone would contradict the noble Lord when he made that statement. But had the people of Wales always been so anxious for education? He found, on looking back to the Report of the Committee appointed by Mr. Gladstone in 1880, that a witness there said—
  "The inhabitants have yet to learn that it is worth while to pay a good price for a superior education."
  That witness certainly did not think that the love for education among the Welsh people was so strong as Lord Rendel had attempted to prove. He also found, from the evidence given before that Committee, that only 4,000 boys were receiving higher education in Wales in 1880, whereas there should have been, in the estimate of the Committee, 15,700. That certainly did not prove the contention of his noble friend Lord Rendel.
  The noble Lord went on to say that Wales had, not unreasonably, been called a nation of Nonconformists. That might be so. But would the noble Lord tell him that those Nonconformists owed their education in the past entirely to Nonconformity? If he did he would refer him to the great efforts that were made by the Church of England in Wales in years gone by in the promotion of education by carrying on their own voluntary schools. In 1846 out of 685 schools in
  944
  Wales, 581 were Church of England schools, and the Commissioners of 1864–66 found that there were 27 endowed higher schools in Wales owing their existence to Churchmen or Church women. Aberystwith University College received in voluntary contributions between 1863 and 1880 more than £50,000. Of this sum Churchmen contributed 33 per cent. though they were said to represent only 12½ per cent. of the Welsh people.
  He contended that the agitation on this subject was so much directed not to educational ends as that it formed a part of the Radical hostility in Wales to the State Church. Welsh Radicals imagined that if they could only destroy the voluntary schools in Wales a long step would be achieved towards the demolition of the Church establishment, and he certainly doubted whether this hostility would be lessened even if this Education Council were formed. There seemed to be no signs of it. The Swansea Local Education Association was still carrying on its campaign against the voluntary schools in that town, and incidentally against the Board of Education, who had taken the side of the voluntary schools. On 13th October The Times reported that at a meeting of the Welsh Liberal Convention at Cardiff a resolution was unanimously passed—
  "That this convention desires to express its firm adherence with the stand made by the Swansea Education Authority for the control of public expenditure upon sectarian schools within the borough, and its determination to support the authority against the threatened interference of the Board of Education officials with the statutory power vested in the authority in the plain words of the Act of Parliament."
  The amazing point was that Mr. Lloyd-George was present at this meeting and offered no objection to this vote of censure on his colleague, Mr. Birrell. He regarded this as a most extraordinary performance on the part of one Cabinet Minister towards another, and he thought the noble Earl, the Lord President, might be invited to comment upon this new development of "Cabinet responsibility." There were occasions when a politician ascended the political ladder too quickly, and found himself a Cabinet Minister without having served in a subordinate position, and therefore without having had impressed upon him the fact that as a Cabinet Minister he

  945
  spoke with considerably more authority than would otherwise be the case.
  He had only to say in conclusion that he looked with great mistrust on elementary education being handed over to a council in Wales. He had had experience of local education authorities in Wales during the time he was responsible for the administration of the Act of 1902, and he certainly then saw action taking place which he was sure noble Lords opposite would repudiate if they considered the matter. On 1st July and 1st October, 1905, 205 teachers of voluntary schools in Montgomeryshire were without salary; and they would not have got it at all, nor would the voluntary schools have been provided with coal or light, but for the operation of the Default Act.
  THE LORI) PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, I think there was something of a general hope in the House yesterday that the Committee stage of the Bill might have concluded last night, but it very soon became evident, in the course of the debate, that that not undesirable consummation was not likely to be brought about; and when we consider the importance of the subject which is now under discussion, I feel sure that the Committee cannot be surprised that such was the case. Last night we had some very interesting speeches. The debate was opened by the noble Earl opposite, Lord Cawdor, in one of his very trenchant speeches, and he apologised, quite unnecessarily, as I think, for the length at which he developed the subject. Then we had a speech to which I am sure the whole House listened with interest—a maiden speech from my noble friend behind me, Lord Rendel, who speaks with great authority upon this question.
  Lord Cawdor stated last night that there was no kind of precedent for this proposal, and he devoted an elaborate argument to explaining that in his opinion the existence of the Welsh Intermediate Board under the Act of 1889 ought not, and could not, offer a distinct precedent for the introduction of this clause. I do not think it has ever been maintained that that Act offers an exact precedent for this proposition; but when the noble Marquess who has just sat down says that he sees no reason why the
  946
  system of Welsh Education should in any way differ from that which exists in this country, I am obliged to refer him to that Act, which does involve a very marked difference between the two systems, and which, as my noble friend Lord Rendel, who himself took so much part in promoting it, reminded us last night, was carried through, not merely by the goodwill, but by the active assistance of a Conservative Minister, Sir Willliam Hart Dyke. I say that the parallel is not exact, and we have never pretended that it is, but what happened then was that the system of technical and secondary education was placed for the first time on a firm and uniform basis, and it was natural, having regard to the desires of the Welsh people, that that part of education should be managed by a central board. What we propose to do now, now that we hope by our Bill that elementary education is also to be established as far as possible on a uniform basis, is to devise a manner by which, also in accordance with the desires of the Welsh people, a somewhat similar centralisation of Welsh elementary education should take place.
  Now, my Lords, is this measure de manded or not? The noble Earl denied that Wales was unanimous in the matter. That is obvious. The noble Earl's speech shows, at any rate, that there is one Welshman who strongly objects to it, and I do not know that we have ever used the word "unanimity'' in respect to this matter. In the debate on the Second Reading the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of St. Asaph said—
  "I should be tampering with accuracy if I led the House to believe that Churchmen in Wales were unanimously in favour of such a council."
  That is not putting it very high, and I cordially agree with the right rev. Prelate. I have no doubt there are a very distinct number of Churchmen who have a dislike, and even a dread, of this proposal, but what we do say is that there is a very general demand, and a demand not by any means confined to one Church or to one Party throughout Wales; and, after all, my Lords, it must be remembered that, so far as the representatives of the Welsh people in Parliament are concerned, there is, so far as I know, no difference of opinion as to the desirability of forming a council of this kind. And I am confirmed in my impression of a

  947
  general demand when I remember that both the right rev. Prelates the Bishop of St. Asaph and the Bishop of St. David's, who spoke last night, although each of them severely criticised this particular proposal, did not in express terms state that they were averse to the idea of a Welsh Council of Education. The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of St. David's seemed to prefer that if such a council were to be formed it should take the shape of a re-constituted central board with additional powers. That is a perfectly fair criticism to make, but it is quite a different character of criticism from that which fell from the noble Earl, Lord Cawdor.
  The noble Earl had two main reasons, both of which he developed with great force, for objecting to this proposition. The first was the history of this clause— a somewhat chequered history, I freely admit—in another place. When the proposal first appeared in Parliament it no doubt did provide for a very complete system of educational autonomy in Wales—not, I think, Home Rule in any possible sense, but very complete educational autonomy; and I think we all felt that for so bold a proposition as that a pretty general measure of assent would be demanded. That assent was not forth-coming. The proposals were severely criticised, but they were not criticised in another place in the tone adopted by the noble Earl. Sir William Anson, who spoke, of course, with all the weight of his experience, and a very brilliant Conservative Member of Parliament, Mr. F. E. Smith, devoted themselves to the criticism of the clause. But they also devoted themselves to what they considered its Amendment, and they laid down certain propositions which, in their view, were indispensible if a council of this kind was to be brought into being.
  The first proposal which they made was one for minority representation. In this country, as a rule, we are not very fond of minority representation. My noble friend Lord Courtney will bear out that statement. Various propositions have often been made, as we know, for minority representation, which, however fair we may admit them to be in theory, are considered difficult to put into operation. However, in this case the general rule was departed from and minority representation was cheerfully provided
  948
  for. Then, my Lords, in view of a certain fervour which exists in Wales on these religious difficulties, it was agreed that all religious questions should be referred to the Board of Education. Further, in order to ensure, again at the request of these gentlemen, proper control over finance, the accounts of this council were to be submitted to the Committee of Public Accounts and to the Controller and Auditor-General; and, lastly, full willingness was expressed to meet the point of Parliamentary control and control over the estimates to be submitted to Parliament. I confess I do not see what ground of complaint the noble Earl has in the fact that those Amendments, suggested by his own Party, were readily accepted in another place.
  EARL CAWDOR: I made no complaint of it.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Begging the noble Earl's pardon, I think he did complain, because he seemed to regard that as so hopelessly unbusinesslike a way of conducting a Bill through Parliament that that fact alone afforded a ground for asking your Lordships to reject it. We do not think that any discredit whatever attaches to the acceptance of suggestions of that kind under the circumstances under which this clause was introduced. Noble Lords opposite may pretend that it is a proper method of carrying legislation to introduce a measure in another place, to force it through by a majority, and then, as in the case of the Licensing Bill, to compel its passage through this House without even verbal Amendment. The last feat is obviously impossible for us. We could not do it if we would, and I say quite definitely we would not if we could. After all, the noble Lord's criticism of the conduct of the Bill in another place, and of which I confess I admired the dialectical ingenuity, did not appear to be absolutely relevant. What your Lordships have to consider is what are the merits of this particular proposal as it appears before your Lordships, and what adventures it went through elsewhere are really not relevant in that connection.
  The noble Earl dwelt on the fact that the control under this clause was vested in the Treasury, and he offered some strong criticisms upon that point. It certainly seemed to us, in view of the fact

  949
  that the Intermediate Board is under the control of the Treasury, that it might be and would be advantageous to adopt a similar plan in relation to this proposed central council. But it is not a crucial matter, and I can only say that if, as a condition of acceptance of this clause the noble Earl and his friends ask us to substitute the Board of Education for the Treasury in that matter, we shall be perfectly prepared to consider that proposal and to make the necessary alterations in the clause. From what followed in the noble Earl's speech, I fear that even such a concession as that, which would be of a very considerable character I should think from the noble Earl's point of view, would not satisfy him, because his objection to the council, unlike that of other critics of the Bill and of the right rev. Prelates, appears to be largely founded on the fact that he regards it as a dangerous measure of Home Rule, and the noble Marquess who has just sat down appears to share that view.
  When I was listening last night to the noble Earl, I confess he took me back thirteen or fourteen years, to the time when I lived in Ireland. I recognised that tone so well, and I could not help thinking that the noble Marquess, who was then sitting next to the noble Earl, must have felt what an Orangeman was lost to the North of Ireland by the fact that the noble Earl's interests are divided between Scotland and Wales. I do not wish to be otherwise than polite, but I confess that it does appear to me that to speak of the dread of Home Rule in this connection is really Unionism run mad. The noble Earl said that he disliked Home Rule step by step as much as in any other form. Yes, my Lords; but what is step by step? There were plenty of people in Ireland who thought, and I daresay some still think, that the concession of local government to Ireland by noble Lords opposite was a dangerous step in the direction of Home Rule. What is a step in the direction of Home Rule must always be a matter of opinion. It might very easily happen that, in the opinions of people who favoured Home Rule, a concession in the direction of devolution was a positive bar and obstacle to their ultimately obtaining their wishes. These matters will always remain matters of opinion, and I really do not think the noble Earl, even if he regards
  950
  this as a dangerous step of devolution, is justified in saying that it is a step towards Home Rule.
  Then the noble Earl dealt with what has been nicknamed the Welsh Revolt, and I was sorry that he went out of his way to make such a very formal attack upon my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade. I think it is rather contrary to the custom of this House to make elaborate attacks of that kind on Ministers who sit in another place. My right hon. friend is well able to take care of himself, but, of course, he is unable to answer the noble Earl here. I would only say just this much on that point, that everybody knows the part my right hon. friend has played in the public life of Wales, both in relation to education and other matters, and I think it would be too much to expect that he, having obtained high office under the Crown, should at once adopt a chilly attitude of detachment in these matters and altogether break loose from the former career in which he had become so distinguished. I have no wish to discuss the incidents of that unhappy war, for so I must call it, in Wales. I say, frankly, that I deeply regret a great many of those incidents, but although I might not in any particular case be able to withhold blame from those who have conducted these warlike operations in Wales, yet at the same time I cannot forget that if noble Lords opposite and their friends in 1902 had not so completely ignored the sentiments of those of whom the population of Wales is so largely composed, these difficulties never could have arisen. Noble Lords, as it seemed to us, thought at that time of very little but the triumph at the moment of their own views, and it is impossible, from our point of view, to absolve them from a large part of the blame of these untoward events which have occurred in the Principality. The noble Marquess said he did not see why the creation of an Education Council for Wales should cause this hostility to cease. No, my Lords; but we do believe that if what the people in Wales consider to be the serious injustice inflicted on them by the Act of 1902 were remedied by the passing of our Education Bill, those fires of controversy would die down. It is not the creation of the

  951
  council, but the passing of the Bill as a whole to which we look for that happy result.
  I cannot help saying, in conclusion, that it seems to me that your Lordships undertake a very grave responsibility in placing yourselves in the hands of the minority in Wales. The noble Earl who has moved the rejection of this clause is a very distinguished Member of this House. We all admit his great business capacity, and we admire the way in which he states his views, but we are not prepared to appoint him a dictator for Wales or a general arbiter of what is to take place with regard to the government of that country. So far as criticism of this clause is concerned in any of its details, we entirely admit your Lordships' right not merely to criticise, but to exercise in the lobby your power of carrying that criticism into formal effect; but we do think, and I hold this view very strongly, that you will be stretching your functions very far indeed by the total rejection of a clause of this kind.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid the noble Earl, the Lord President of the Council, had spoken of the responsibility which, in his judgment, rested on their Lordships in dealing with this clause. There were several points to be remembered in connection with the matter. The first was the fact, which no one could deny, that the minority in Wales, which was a strong minority, and a minority whose interests he was sure noble Lords opposite would admit ought fairly to be considered, had been left by the fortunes of the electoral system without a single representative in another place. Secondly, it must be admitted that no settlement of this question, as the noble Earl himself had stated, could possibly be arrived at which would be lasting, unless it were a settlement arrived at in accordance with the general feeling of those who lived in Wales. He would also point out that the proposal before their Lordships was never really discussed in the House of Commons at all. The last addendum to the proposal, that which imposed on the Treasury the financial responsibility for submiting to Parliament the Estimates for Welsh education and for controlling the council, was carried without a single word of debate, and was now for the first
  952
  time under discussion in either House of Parliament.
  The Lord President of the Council had objected to the argument of the noble Earl, Lord Cawdor, in opposing the clause on the ground that it was a step towards Home Rule. He found himself to some extent in accord with the Lord President. Parliament had on several occasions legislated separately for Wales, and it must be admitted that there was a kind of distinctive character about the population of Wales which justified that legislation. But he was convinced that the spirit in which this proposal of a Welsh Council was originally framed and the desire of those who framed it were the spirit and the desire of Home Rule. It also appeared to him to be absolutely unconstitutional to make the proposal contained in this clause as first proposed to the House of Commons, viz., that they should abolish the direct control of Parliament over the Estimates of the country so far as the cost of elementary education in Wales was concerned. If that was not the spirit of Home Rule he did not know what the spirit of Home Rule was.
  But there was another way in which the spirit of Home Rule showed itself in the orginal proposal. One grave objection to the proposal to establish a separate Parliament for Ireland free from the control of the Parliament of the United Kingdom was that no care was taken to safeguard the rights of the minority. How were the rights of the minority in Wales safeguarded under the original clause? There was not a word about it. As their Lordships knew, the rights of the minority in Wales had been abused in the last few years in this very matter of elementary education, and yet they were to be governed absolutely by the votes of the majority in the Welsh Council. As the noble Earl had said, there was no such general approval of the clause in the original shape as would justify the Government in proceeding with it. What did they do? They turned the clause inside out, and in the final shape in which it was now presented it was absolutely unworkable.
  He did not think there was anyone in the country outside the ranks of the permanent Civil Servants who had a

  953
  greater administrative experience in Treasury matters than he had, and he ventured to say that the financial control by the Treasury which was now proposed by the clause would be absolutely inefficient for financial purposes, and would be worse than inefficient for educational purposes. The Treasury was accustomed to raise ways and means for the expenditure of the country, and to cheek the expenditure of the various departments so far as it was able to control them, which sometimes was not to any great extent, but it was impossible for the Treasury to judge what the educational policy of such a body as the proposed Welsh Council ought to be, and to decide on the details of the Estimates both from the point of view of those who desired the efficiency of education, and from the point of view of a department which desired to restrict expenditure.
  From his own experience he knew that the thing was absolutely unworkable, and there was nothing in the Intermediate Education Act which in any sense would justify such an experiment. The administration of that Act was entrusted not to the Treasury, but to the Charity Commissioners, whose powers had since been transferred to the Board of Education, but that Board had been deliberately cut out of this clause as far as it was possible to do so. The Government had not been too ready to accept suggestions from that side of the House for the Amendment of the Bill, but this clause was thrown on the Table for them to amend as they liked. If they desired they might put in the Board of Education instead of the Treasury; indeed, if he interpreted the noble Earl aright, the Government were prepared to accept pretty nearly any Amendments they might put into this clause.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I certainly did not go as far as that.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNthought that was very nearly the position. The noble Earl had admitted the importance of the proposal, but said that some change of this kind was desired by the majority of the population of Wales. It might be so; he did not question that. But the more important the matter was, the greater the desire might be for such a change, the more incumbent it was
  954
  on the Government to consider it carefully from every point of view before they embodied their proposals in the Bill. Yet they had had three different editions of the proposal, none of them satisfactory, and now their Lordships were asked to help the Government in finding another edition. In his humble opinion that was not the way to deal with a question which might become a great constitutional question if they went beyond a certain point in attempting to deal with it, and he hoped their Lordships would reject the clause.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid he had in his diocese a considerable portion of two Welsh counties, and his observation during the last eleven years had enabled him to form an opinion on this subject at first hand. He, therefore, hoped he would not be considered intrusive in venturing to take a small part in this discussion. He thought it would be a real misfortune if this clause were rejected, and he was positive that its rejection would produce consequences which their Lordships would not desire. He, therefore, sincerely hoped that the clause would be passed possibly with some Amendment, and that it would remain an integral part of the Bill. Looked at from a purely educational point of view, the point of view which he personally had endeavoured to maintain throughout these discussions, he could not but feel that it was a very reasonable clause.
  The noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, had gone back to the year 1846, but he preferred to look upon the present state of things as resulting in some degree from what was done in the year 1889. The Intermediate Education Act for Wales had, by universal consent, been of the greatest possible value to education. Knowing some of its results in those counties with which he was connected, he had often wished that they could have had such an Act in force throughout the length and breadth of the country. Had that been so, the intermediate education of England would have been in a far more advanced condition than it was to-day. No one who knew the Welsh people questioned for a moment their intense enthusiasm for education, and no one who had visited, as he had, the Welsh colleges

  955
  in Cardiff and Aberystwyth could for a moment doubt what an immense benefit had accrued to the Welsh people in every grade of life through their enthusiasm for popular education. He held that the clause was a natural development of the Act of 1889; it was simply another case of extended devolution.
  He could not share the a'arm—whether it was real or artificial he was not quite sure—which had been expressed with regard to the bogey of Home Rule. There were persons whose imaginations became so inflamed when they had to discuss matters of local self-government that these bogeys rose in front of them at every turn; but, when they looked at this matter dispassionately and from an educational point of view, he ventured to assert that they must recognise that the clause was simply a natural expansion of the principle of devolution which had worked so well under the Intermediate Education Act. He thought they ought to bear in mind the fact that the powers given under this clause were simply administrative powers. Looking at the clause as it stood, he thought the Government had been careful to protect and
  safeguard the rights of minorities. He was glad that it should be so, because he had for many years past been in the position of advocating the rights of minorities in one cause or another when they did not receive so much attention from noble Lords opposite as they appeared to receive now.
  He thought that the safeguards were of a very adequate kind, and that the administrative liberty of the proposed council would be surrounded on all important sides by what had come to be called a "barbed wire entanglement." He saw no possible loophole for maladministration. If noble Lords opposite were dissatisfied in regard to Treasury control or any other particular point, it would be as well that they should at this stage suggest Amendments. They had not been shy of suggesting Amendments to the Bill, why should they be so shy on this particular clause? He hoped the clause would keep its place in the Bill either as it now stood or with some reasonable Amendment.
  On Question, "That Clause 26 stand part of the Bill," their Lordships divided: Contents, 44; Not-contents, 109.

  CONTENTS.

  Crewe, E. (L. President.)

  Coleridge, L.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Courtney of Penwith, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Davey, L

  Mendip, L (V. Clifden.)

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  O'Hagan, L.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Overtoun, L.

  Ashburnham, E.

  Pirrie, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Eversley, L.

  Reay, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Farrer, L.

  Rendel, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Craven, E.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.) [Teller.]

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Shuttleworth, L.

  Grimthorpe, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Hamilton, of Dalzell, L.

  Tweedmouth, T.

  Haversham, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Headley, L.

  Weardale, L.

  Boston, L.

  Hemphill, L.

  Welby, L.

  Burghclere, L.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Colebrooke, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Cathcart, E.

  Lichfield, E.

  Devonshire, D.

  Cawdor, E.

  Lonsdale, E.

  Newcastle, D.

  Clarendon, E.

  Manvers, E.

  Northumberland, D.

  Denbigh, E.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Morley, E.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Onslow, E.

  Bristol, M.

  Egerton, E.

  Plymouth, E.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Eldon, E.

  Rosse, E.

  Salisbury, M.

  Feversham, E.

  Saint, Germans E.

  Halsbury, E.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Bradford, E.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Verualm, E.

  Camperdown, E.

  Jersey, E.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Yarborough, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Biddulph, L.

  Muncaster, L.

  Bridport, V.

  Blythswood, L.

  Napier, L.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Borthwick, L.

  Oranmore and Brown, L.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Braye, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Cross, V.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough)

  Falkland, V.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Rathmore, L.

  Falmouth, V.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Ravensworth, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Clifford o f Chudleigh, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Halifax, V.

  Colchester, L.

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Hill, V.

  Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

  Robertson, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  De Mauley, L.

  St. Oswald, L.

  de Ross, L.

  Sanderson, L.

  Iveagh, V.

  Digby, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Knutsford, V.

  Estcourt, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Llandaff, V.

  Faber, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  St. Aldwyn, V.

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

  Stalbridge, L.

  Forester, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage)

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  London, L. Bp.

  Hatherton, L.

  St. David's, L. Bp.

  Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)

  Stratheden, and Campbell, L.

  Heneage, L.

  Stuart of Castle Stuart, L. (E. Moray.)

  Ampthill, L.

  Kelvin, L.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Ventry, L.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Vivian, L.

  Ashcombe, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Waleran, L.

  Atkinson, L.

  Leith of Fyvie, L.

  Barrymore, L.

  Masham, L.

  On Question, Schedule agreed to.

  Clauses 27, 28, and 29 agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to add the following new clause after Clause 29—"Section 16 of the Education Act, 1902, shall apply to any failure of a local education authority to fulfil any of their duties under this Act." He said there was a clause at the end of the Bill which prescribed that it was to be read along with the other Education Acts. He did not know how far that would apply all the provisions of former Education Acts, such as were not repealed, to this Act. If the noble Earl in charge of the Bill assured him that Section 16 of the Act of 1902 would apply under the provisions of the Bill as they stood, he would not press his Amendment. But if there was any doubt about it he submitted that his Amendment was required. Some such provision was necessary, because, whether the Bill was to be finally passed in the form in which it now stood, or, indeed, even in the original condition in which the Government introduced it into their Lordships' House, there must be certain Orders of the Board of Education which would require to be enforced. For example, as the Government introduced the Bill Clause 3 was mandatory upon the local education authority, and if the local authority did not comply, there must be some machinery created under which they could be compelled to
  958
  do so. Then, again, under Clause 5 as the Bill was introduced to their Lordships' House the Board of Education, on appeal, were empowered to make Orders compelling the local education authority to take certain action. If these Orders were to be carried out there must be some means of enforcing them. The method adopted in the Act of 1902 was contained in Section 16 of that Act, and in the absence of any other provision it appeared to him necessary that that clause should be embodied. But, as he had said, if the noble Earl could assure him that it was already embodied he would not persist in his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert the following new clause,' Section 16 of the Education Act, 1902, shall apply to any failure of a local education authority to fulfil any of their duties under this Act.'"— (The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Marquess has explained quite correctly the state of affairs. It certainly was the intention of His Majesty's Government to incorporate Section 16 of the Act of 1902 in this Bill. There is just a doubt as to whether that is done without the insertion of a clause of this kind. I am looking into the matter and provisionally will accept the noble Marquess's Amendment; but if it should prove at a later stage that it is not necessary I

  959
  hope the noble Marquess will not mind its being removed.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYindicated his agreement.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY moved a new clause making it lawful for any ratepayer to have access to the books and documents of the local education authority without payment. He said that this right was enjoyed by ratepayers under the Act of 1870 and was only taken away by the Act of 1902. He had reproduced the words of the Act of 1870, with this very small modification, that he provided that the local authority might refuse to disclose any particular document if they could satisfy a court of summary jurisdiction that there were special grounds for refusing the demands as being under the circumstances unreasonable. He could imagine, of course, that there might be confidential letters and papers which it would not be advisable to produce.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert the following new clause: 'It shall be lawful for any ratepayer in the district of a local education authority, at all reasonable times without payment, to inspect and take copies of, or extracts from, all books and documents relating to education belonging to or under the control of the local authority. Any person who hinders a ratepayer from so inspecting or taking copies of, or extracts from, any book or document, or demands a fee for allowing him to do so, shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a penalty not exceeding five pounds for each offence, provided that the local authority may refuse to disclose any particular document if they can satisfy a court of summary jurisdiction that there are special grounds for refusing the demand as being under the circumstances unreasonable.'"— (Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  The EARL OF CREWE: This is in some respects rather a doubtful matter, and there are arguments against going the full length which the noble Lord desires. Under Section 233 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, the minutes of a council are open to burgesses on payment of 1s. They may make copies and extracts, and also inspect any orders for the payment of money. The noble Lord complains that the larger power, although applicable to the old school boards, is not now applicable to the local
  960
  authorities in respect of education. It is obvious that it is very difficult to give these powers in respect of educational matters without giving them in respect of other matters with which the local authorities are concerned. An attempt was made in the London Act of 1903 to meet the case by applying the powers. I have mentioned to the Education; Committee of the London County Council. If the noble Lord will agree to the giving of those powers of inspecting minutes and orders to pay in the case of all education committees we should be prepared to go as far as that; and I might remind the noble Lord that if we are to delegate money-spending powers, to small committees the power of inspect-ting the orders would be a very valuable-one to the ratepayers in that case. I hope my noble friend will agree to limit the power in the way suggested, and if he does I will bring up a clause at a later stage.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid that the offer made by the noble Earl was, to his mind, quite inadequate' to secure that proper knowledge of the way the business was transacted which the ratepayers had a right to have. Some noble Lords might have seen a letter in the Westminster Gazette the other day calling attention to the fact that in the Tower Hamlets Division, where there was a great pressure of school accommodation, the managers, in making remonstrances to the local authority and complaining of the want of school provision, desired to fortify their case by submitting the figures in the adjacent schools showing that they were overcrowded. That information was actually withheld, and the managers were not allowed, although the documents were in the possession of the local authority, to know what was the relation of school provision to school attendance in that neighbourhood. If such information could be refused it prevented that valuable criticism which the electors had a right to bring to bear on those who transacted their business. This was not a new clause, but one which had worked well for thirty-two years, and he believed the Liberal Party actively protested against its repeal in the Act of 1902. He gathered from what the noble Earl had said that unless he accepted the offer now made he would get nothing. The responsibility must

  961
  rest with the noble Earl to put down a new clause on this matter. As what the noble Earl had offered him was, to his mind, quite inadequate, he must allow the Amendment to be negatived.
  On question, Amendment negatived.
  Remaining clause agreed to.
  On Schedule:—
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I would point out that the Bill has undergone very considerable amendment since the Amendments to the Schedule were put down, and that it is not outside the bounds of possibility that there may be still further Amendments on Report, involving further alterations of the Schedule. I therefore think it would be more convenient if the most rev. Primate and the other noble Lords who have put down Amendments to the Schedule would defer them until a later stage when the Bill assumes its final shape.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I think your Lordships will be disposed to fall in with the suggestion of the noble Earl the Lord Chairman. The schedule is naturally explanatory and consequential, and it would be a waste of time to bring it now into conformity with the Bill, when it is possible that further alterations may be made. I therefore think your Lordships would be wise in deferring the Amendments to the Schedule.
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFFassented. If the Bill was to be further altered there could, he said, be no object in proceeding with the Amendments to the Schedule at this stage.
  Standing Committee negatived. The report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 214.)
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed by the Lord FITZ-MAURICE.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next: The Lord Granard [E. Granard]). (No. 210.)
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock to Monday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.