Sitting of 15 August 1907

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Colne Valley Water Bill [Lords]; Glasgow Corporation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

YORK (MICKLEGATE STRAYS) (RE-COMMITTED) BILL [LORDS].
The Select Committee on the York (Micklegate Strays) (re-committed) Bill [Lords] was nominated of,—Mr. Charles Corbett, Sir Joseph Leese, Mr. George Nicholls, Mr. John O'Connor, Mr. Parker, Earl of Ronaldshay, and Mr. Waterlow.
Ordered, That the parties interested have leave to be heard by themselves, their counsel, agents, or witnesses.
Ordered, That the Committee nave power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(Mr. Whiteley.)
Dumbarton Burgh and County Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Dumbarton Burgh Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Aberdeen Harbour Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill ordered, under Section 7 of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, to be considered To-morrow.
Order [14th August] that the said Bill be printed, read, and discharged.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:—Evidence (Colonial Statutes) Bill, without Amendment.
Amendments to:—Renfrewshire Upper District (Eastwood and Mearns) Water Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

PETITIONS.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from Southampton, against; to lie upon the Table.
  WEEKLY REST-DAY BILL.
  Petition in favour: From Cardiff, and London; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  NAVIGATION OF THE DANUBE (COMMERCIAL, No. 9, 1907).
  Copy presented, of Despatch from Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Henry Trotter reporting upon the operations of the European Commission of the Danube during the years 1894–1906, together with a Résumé of its previous History (with Plan) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR RELIEF (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 12th August; Dr. Macnamara]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 309].
  FISHERIES (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland on the Sea and Inland Fisheries of Ireland for 1906. Part I. General Report [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  The Coastguard Service.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS (St. Pancras, W.): To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to state what action is contemplated in regard to the Coastguard Service, in consequence of the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee; and whether the Report will be laid upon the Table of the House.

  1577
  (Answered by Mr. Lambert.) I am afraid I can add nothing to the replies which have been given to numerous similar Questions.

  Protection of British Subjects at Spitzbergen.
  MR. J. D. WHITE: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that some months ago an attack, which nearly had fatal consequences, was made upon a British subject in Spitzbergen, that British lives and property there were in serious danger, and that a message was sent requesting British assistance; if he can state whether any negotiations are in progress to have Spitzbergen placed under responsible national or international control; and whether he will consider the advisability of promoting some such arrangement.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) His Majesty's Government have received reports of an outbreak which took place in Spitzbergen last spring, in the course of which injuries were inflicted upon a British subject. The long interval that elapsed between the outbreak and the date when it became known here made it impossible for any British warship to reach the island in time to afford any help, even had the actual situation warranted such a step. In reply to the last part of the hon. Member's Question, His Majesty's Government cannot undertake to initiate negotiations with the object of instituting some kind of control over Spitzbergen Any British subject going to that island for trade or other purposes must do so at his own risk, and we cannot exercise any jurisdiction or assume any responsibility there.

  Inland Revenue—Penalties of Irregularities.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the public proceedings taken and the penalties levied by the Board of Inland Revenue in the case of a firm of whisky dealers at Tullamore (there being no fraud on the revenue), he will state what were the steps taken and the penalties levied when, in or about 1901, it was found
  1578
  that over 1,000 gallons of spirits had been surreptitiously removed, without payment of duty, from a distillery in London; and what action was taken when irregularities were discovered at the same distillery in 1905.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The case in 1901 to which the hon. Member alludes was presumably one in which a deficiency of 1,000 gallons was discovered in the spirit store of a distillery. As the deficiency could not be satisfactorily explained, the Board of Inland Revenue exacted the penalty of £ 1 per gallon, prescribed by Section 44 of The Spirits Act, 1880. In this case no suspicion attached to the proprietors of the distillery. In 1905 at the same distillery an irregularity, but one of no very serious character, was detected on the part of some employees, and a penalty of £50 was imposed.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the supervisor in charge of the London distillery in which irregularities took place in or about 1901 was ordered to be removed, but, notwithstanding that order, was left in charge until 1905, when irregularities were discovered, this official being then retired; whether he had been a colleague at this distillery of the then Chief and Assistant Chief Inspectors of Excise; whether the then Chief Inspector was responsible for seeing that the supervisor was removed in 1901; whether he is aware that, when the supervisor was retired in 1905 or 1906, the officer appointed to succeed him was the close official friend of the Chief and Assistant Chief Inspectors, and was appointed on the recommendation of the former over the heads of about 100 of his seniors, contrary to the rules of the Department; and whether, having regard to the Answers given in this House last session in respect to this appointment, he will state what was the result of the examination of this official when he was allowed to compete at the last competition for inspectorship, contrary to the regulations.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am informed that no order for removed of the supervisor was given in 1901. He remained in charge till 1905, when he

  1579
  had passed the age of sixty, and the Board of Inland Revenue, not being satisfied that he remained thoroughly efficient, called upon him to retire. There was no imputation on his integrity. The circumstances connected with the appointment of his successor were fully explained in reply to a series of Questions put by the hon. Member for the Leix Division of Queen's County in February and March, 1906. There is no foundation for the suggestions conveyed in the present Question as regards relations between the officer in question and his superior officers. He was not amongst the successful condidates at the last competition for the inspectorship.

  The Parliamentary Debates.
  MR. BYLES: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the contract for the reporting and printing of Hansard has been renewed to the present contractors for next session; if so, whether such conditions have been stipulated for as will prevent the recurrence of the oppressive overwork to which reference is made in the Report of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Reporting; and whether, if not too late, he will consult the present reporters as to the conditions which should be imposed with respect to the number of men to be employed in note-taking, the hours of duty, and the salaries usually paid for such work.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. It was not found possible, in the circumstances, to make any substantial modifications in the conditions of the contract, which is for the duration of next session only.

  Out-Relief in Halifax.
  MR. PARKER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to a statement by Mr. P. H. Bagenal, Local Government Board inspector, that the amount of out-relief in Halifax was too high, and that it ought to be reduced; whether Mr. Bagenal intended to refer to outdoor relief to the sick who were unable to pay for necessary medical attendance and other necessaries for their condition,
  1580
  to the deserving aged poor, and to widows with a dependent child or children whom they were bringing up respectably but were unable to support without Poor Law help; whether he had himself visited the homes of the poor in Halifax before making the above statement and suggestion; whether in the appendix to the 35th Annual Report of the Local Government Board there were any other reports of inspectors other than Mr. Hervey and Mr. P. Bagenal, in which the cost of in-maintenance was by mistake stated as the cost of in-relief; and whether any books or papers laid by the Local Government Board or its inspector before the Poor Law Commission had the same or a similar mistake.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have seen a newspaper paragraph on the subject referred to in the first part of the Question. Mr. Bagenal informs me that, when he addressed the Halifax Guardians he referred to the total amount spent on outdoor relief generally in their union as compared with that in some other unions. He made no specific allusion to the particular classes mentioned in the Question, nor had he visited the homes of the poor in Halifax. His object was to induce the guardians to make some alterations in their method of administering relief and to increase their staff of relieving officers. The term "indoor relief," or "in-relief," is not used as synonymous with "in-maintenance" in the reports of the other inspectors referred to in the latter part of the Question. I am not aware that it has been so treated in any books or papers laid before the Poor Law Commission by officers of the department, but I have no complete information on this point.

  Employment of Police Constables as Water Bailiffs in Dumfriesshire.
  MR. MOLTENO: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction felt in Dumfriesshire at the employment of police constables as water bailiffs; and what action he proposes to take.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The Secretary for Scotland has no power to interfere in this matter. The constables

  1581
  employed as water bailiffs are "additional" constables paid by the district fishery boards, who make arrangements with the county council.

  Short Platforms on the South Eastern and Chatham Railway.
  MR. STRAUS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the fact that many of the platforms of important stations on the old London, Chatham, and Dover line are too short to accommodate an ordinary train, necessitating the train drawing up two or three times and consequently endangering the safety of the public, as well as wasting a great deal of time; and whether he can make representations to the railway company now controlling this line to lengthen the platforms and avoid the danger and inconvenience to the public.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Board of Trade have communicated with the managing committee of the South Eastern and Chatham Railway in this matter and have received the following reply:—
  "South Eastern and Chatham Railway,"
  "General Manager's Office,
  "London Bridge Station, S.E.
  "14th August, 1907.
  "Sir,—I am in receipt of your letter of the 14th instant, R. 10187, enclosing notice of a Question which Mr. B. S. Straus proposes to ask the President in the House of Commons to-morrow (Thursday) relating to the platform accommodation at certain stations on the Chatham section of this railway.
  "In reply I would point out that Mr. Straus does not specify the stations to which he refers nor does he give the particular trains affected.
  "At the same time, I may say that at some of our stations it is undoubtedly impossible to lengthen the platforms owing to various circumstances arising at the particular places, i.e., in most cases it is either impossible to obtain the land requisite for the extension or to carry out the same without heavy and expensive works.
  1582
  "The trains, as you are aware, vary as to length, and the traffic at different seasons of the year, and especially at the present time, is very heavy, rendering unavoidable the addition of extra coaches."
  If my hon. friend furnishes me with particulars of the stations or trains he has in mind, I will consider whether further representations can usefully be made to the managing committee.

  Gooseberry Mildew—Prohibition of Importation of Bushes.
  MR. BECK: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board intend to prohibit temporarily the importation of gooseberry bushes and standards on Ribes aureum stocks, in view of the danger of the further introduction into this country of the American gooseberry mildew on such imported plants.
  (Answered, by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Board are now considering the terms of an order prohibiting the importation of plants and bushes bearing edible fruit except by a licence to which conditions will be attached with the object of preventing the introduction not only of the gooseberry mildew but also of other pests injurious to horticulture.

  Punjaub Revenue Assessments Agitation.
  MR. REES (): To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the agitation in the Punjaub against the existing revenue assessment is due in a great measure to the fact that the land has, to a great extent, passed into other hands than those of the actual cultivators; whether the new landlords, who have replaced the original cultivators, object to the payment of the share due to the Government; and whether, in view of criticisms of the Government in this behalf, proceeding from representatives of such landlords, he will resist proposals to reduce the assessment now collected from the landlords for expenditure upon the general public, including the expropriated agriculturists.

  1583
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Motley.) I am not aware of an agitation in the Punjaub against the revenue assessment. As I stated in the Answer which I gave to a Question on the 16th July, the amount of the land tax was mentioned as a grievance in the case of the disturbances as Rawal Pindi only, in which district the assessments had been recently revised. I am not able to say how far the objections to the revised assessments in that district were confined to new purchasers of land. The Local Government will, as I have stated, deal considerately with any genuine instance of over-assessment which may come to light, whether the complainants are agriculturists or otherwise.

  The Army Reserve.
  MR. ASHLEY: To ask the Secretary of State for War what percentage of men who, during the last ten years have completed a service of seven years with the colours and five years in the Reserve, have been permitted to remain in the Reserve for a further period of four years.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I would refer the hon. Member to the figures given on page 110 of the General Annual Report [Cd. 3365], where the number of men re-enlisted or re-engaged in Section D during the last ten years are shown, and also the number of men discharged from the other sections of the Reserve on completion of engagement. It must be pointed out that these figures are not limited to men originally enlisted for seven years, and also that the numbers entering Section D include some men who go direct from the colours after the completion of twelve years service and consequently have no previous Reserve service.

  Committee of Defence—Position of Secretary.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Prime Minister, as Chairman of the Committee of Imperial Defence, whether the post of Secretary to the Committee of Imperial Defence has yet been filled; and whether, in view of the importance of the duties, the salary
  1584
  will be continued at the same rate as was the case with its former occupant.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) No vacancy will arise in the-office in question until October next, when Sir George Sydenham Clarke will take up his duties as Governor of Bombay.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Loch Long Torpedo Range.
  MR. J. D. WHITE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, as the proposed torpedo range in Loch Long would be 7,000 yards long, with a breadth at the target end of only 200 yards on each side of the central line, whether the Admiralty can under take that torpedoes would never diverge from the central line sufficiently to pass from the range into the fairway.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. LAMBERT,): I must refer my hon. friend to the printed reply to this Question on Tuesday last.†
  MR. J. D. WHITE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the fact that, in the event of the radius of action of torpedoes being increased to six miles and of the proposed torpedo range in Loch Long being correspondingly lengthened, that range would extend down the loch from shore to shore; and whether, in the event of Loch Long being adopted as the site for the proposed torpedo range, the Admiralty would give an undertaking that neither the length nor the breadth of the torpedo range would be increased beyond the limits at present proposed.
  MR. LAMBERT: My hon. friend will, I hope, excuse me from dealing with hypothetical problems as to what would happen in the event of the radius of torpedo action being increased. Such problems can be dealt with when occasion arises. I may add that Loch Long has been selected as the best site, with the most convenient facilities, for a torpedo
  †See (4) Debates, clxxx., 1046.
  range in the whole of the United Kingdom.

  H.M.S. "Terrible"
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty for what reason there was such a lengthy delay in repairing the recent injury to the propeller shaft of H.M.S. "Terrible."
  MR. LAMBERT: As the vessel requires heavy repairs to boilers in addition to the replacing of the screw shaft, it was decided to take all the defects in hand at one time. Up to the present it has not been convenient to do this, as it would have entailed postponement in the dates of completion of the repairs of more important vessels. Preparatory work is in progress, and the ship will be taken in Land at an early date.

  West Tarring Volunteer Camp.
  MR. CLELAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the fact that, owing to the recent Volunteer camps at West Tarring, Worthing, having been planned from an obsolete Ordnance Survey map, ground allocated for military purposes was discovered to be covered with houses and gardens, and great inconvenience was occasioned; and whether in future he will give instructions either that an up-to-date map be used or the ground be surveyed prior to being allocated for camp purposes.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): The General Officer Commanding-in-Chief will be called upon to make a report on this subject which has not been yet brought to the notice of the Army Council.

  The Volunteers.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the present deficiency of officers in the Volunteer force; how many resigned their commissions; and how many were appointed between 1st January and 31st July of the present year.
  MR. HALDANE: The present deficiency of officers amounts to 2,875. The number
  1586
  of resignations in the period mentioned was 473, and the number of appointments was 439.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, having regard to the fact that some 50,000 engagements of Volunteers expire on the 31st October next, when the Volunteer year closes, and the men require time to consider as to whether they will renew them under the altered conditions of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, he can state what decision has been arrived at as to putting the Act into force.
  MR. GRETTON: I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War, if officers or men joining the Volunteer forces after the 1st November will be requited to engage for a fixed period under penalties for default; if not, when this requirement will be enforced; and if officers and men already serving in the Volunteer forces will be required to reengage under new conditions if they continue to serve as Volunteers.
  MR. HALDANE: Until the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act comes into operation, it is not intended to alter existing conditions under which Volunteers enrol It is not anticipated that the Act will come into operation by 1st November next. Officers and Volunteers who may be serving when the Act becomes operative will be given the option of engaging under the new conditions under Section 29 (3) (a) of that Act.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to give as long notice as he could of his intention to bring the Act into force.
  MR. HALDANE: Yes. It is essential that it should be well known.
  MR. McCRAEasked whether it is not the case that under present conditions, except on reaching the age limit, the engagement of a Volunteer does not expire unless by voluntary resignation.
  MR. HALDANE: I understand that is the case.

  Defective Cartridges at Bisley.
  SIR GILBERTPARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that George Bishop, quartermaster-sergeant of the 2nd Volunteer Battalion Royal Fusiliers, has been offered by the War Office compensation of £41 8s. for an injury received at class-firing at Bisley from a defective cartridge, which exploded in the chamber, carrying away the locking-piece and part of the shoulder of the rifle, lacerating three of Quartermaster-Sergeant Bishop's fingers, and destroying the drum of the right ear, permanently injuring the hearing; is he aware that Quartermaster-Sergeant Bishop has been paying for medical attendance since 25th May, and that at the present time he is paying 2s. a week as an outpatient of the Ear Hospital, Golden Square; and whether he will consider the advisability of increasing the compensation, representing 28 days at 3s. 6d. per day, given to this non-commissioned officer of twenty-five years service in the Volunteers, who through an injury inflicted by defective ammunition is now unable to perform properly his duties in the shop where he is employed.
  MR. HALDANE: I am not aware of this matter, but an inquiry shall be made into the case.

  Railways in Yunnan Province.
  THE EARL OF RONALDSHAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the survey party under Mr. Lilley, of the Indian Public Works Department, despatched by the Government of India from Bhamo in January last to report on the practicability or otherwise of the construction of a railway between Téng Yüeh and Tali Fu, in Yunnan province, has returned to Burma; whether they have reported favourably to the construction of a railway or not; and whether, in view of the interest taken by the mercantile community in this country in the question, their Report or an abstract of their Report will be made accessible to the public.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. CHARLES HOBHOUSE, Bristol, E.): The Secretary of State has received a copy of Mr. Lilley's Reports of his investigations of
  1588
  the country between Téng Yüeh and Tali Fu; but in the present state of the question of railway construction in these regions, it would not be in the public interest to publish these Reports.

  Asiatics in Natal.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to a recent resolution of the Natal Parliament to the effect that the time had arrived when the Government should take steps effectually to restrict and ultimately abolish Asiatic immigration to Natal, and that all Indians or other Asiatics who may arrive in Natal under indenture from 31st December, 1907, should, after the expiration of their indentures, be repatriated; and whether steps will be taken, by the Government of India to prevent indenturing under such conditions.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: In order to carry the resolution, if such a resolution has been passed, into effect, it would be necessary for the Natal Government to induce the Government of India to consent to a revision of the terms of the contract with intending emigrants. Should any such application be made, my hon. friend may be sure that the question will be carefully considered. What precise steps ought to be taken needs a good deal of examination.

  South African Constabulary.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangement the Colonial Office is making to provide for the passage home, and for the future employment, of the members of the South African Constabulary who resigned good positions and prospects in His Majesty's services, and otherwise, to assist the State in the Government force in question, and now find themselves stranded upon the reduction of the constabulary to a minimum by the new Transvaal Government in a country where, owing to the labour difficulty and the repatriation, of Chinese miners, the Englishman can find no opening.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N.W.): Men

  1589
  who enlisted in the South African Constabulary before the 4th January, 1904, are entitled to free passage home on the completion of five years service, and, if they have served with a good character, to a gratuity of one month's pay for every year of service. These advantages will of course continue to be given to men who are entitled to them, but the Secretary of State fears it is out of his power to provide employment for ex-members of the rank and file constabulary. With regard to officers, it has been found necessary from time to time during several years past to dispense with the services of those who become supernumerary to the gradually decreasing establishment. Efforts have been made to find further employment for these officers wherever possible, and such efforts will continue to be made, but the opportunities are necessarily limited.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: May I ask if any facilities are to be given to members of the South African Constabulary who are not officers and are now dismissed owing to the reduction of the force to return home; whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that a considerable number of them are likely to be stranded for want of means; and whether their names cannot be noted for employment in connection with Colonial forces in East Africa or elsewhere?
  MR. CHURCHILL: All that is a matter which requires very careful consideration. I should not like, in answer to a Question, to give a pledge which it would not be in the power of the Secretary of State to fulfil.

  Panama Canal Labourers.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps the British authorities take to satisfy themselves that the labourers engaged in the British West Indies to work on the Panama Isthmian Canal thoroughly understand the terms of their engagement before leaving.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The majority of the labourers from the West Indian Colonies working on the Panama Canal have gone to the Isthmus voluntarily in search of work, and without the cognizance of the Governments. As regards those
  1590
  who have been recruited under contract, the Secretary of State has no doubt that the local Governments assure themselves that the terms of any contract offered are fully understood.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state what are the regular hours of work for labourers engaged in the British West Indies for employment on the Panama Isthmian Canal; and what system is in force to ascertain that these hours are not exceeded.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The matters to which the hon. Member refers come within the purview of the Canal Commission. The British Minister at Panama will be asked to obtain particulars.

  Pacific Cable Route.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the decision to take the Pacific Cable via Fanning Island instead of via Honolulu was made on strategic grounds; and, if so, whether any Report was at any time received from the Admiralty to the effect that a cable via Fanning Island would be easier to defend than a cable via Honolulu; and, if so, whether he will lay that Report upon the Table.
  MR. CHURCHILL: If the hon. Member will refer to paragraph 7 of the Report of the Pacific Cable Committee, which was presented to Parliament in Command Paper No. 9,247, in April, 1899, he will see that the Committee recommended the Fanning Island route on the ground that the Honolulu route would involve a departure from the principle of using only British territory for landing stations, a principle which had been formally endorsed by the Canadian and Australasian Governments.
  MR. HAROLD COXsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not stated whether any Report had been received from the Admiralty to the effect that a cable by way of Fanning Island would be easier to defend than a cable by way of Honolulu.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Obviously that part of the Question should be addressed to the Civil Lord of the Admiralty.

  Transvaal Immigration Restriction Bill.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Clause 13 of the Transvaal Immigration Restriction Bill, to the effect that the burden of proving that a person has not entered or remained in the Colony in contravention of this Act or any regulation shall, in any prosecution for such contravention, lie upon the ac cased person, would apply to coloured subjects of His Majesty who are unrepresented in the Transvaal Legislature; and what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take in the matter.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State apprehends that the Answer 10 the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. On the question of the position of His Majesty's Government regarding the Act, the Secretary of State has nothing to add to the statement made in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for East Leeds on the 12th instant.†

  Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine.
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the work already accomplished by the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine in combating tropical diseases, he can arrange for an increased grant to be made in order that the work may be further extended.
  MR. CHURCHILL: A further grant will be made of which the Secretary of St ate will be able to specify the amount after consultation with the Treasury.

  Tax on Asiatics in the Transvaal.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, while under the Government of the Transvaal Republic, the £3 fee payable by Asiatics under Law 3 of 1885, as amended in 1886, was very generally not enforced, several thousand British-Indians, being I pre war residents, were, shortly after our annexation, compelled to pay £3 each for the privilege of remaining in the new Colony.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am informed that the provision referred to was not
  † See (4) Debates, clxxx., 796.
  enforced in its full strictness by the Executive Government of the South African Republic. The failure to enforce the special laws affecting Indians caused great dissatisfaction among the white community, and formed the subject of repeated resolutions of the Volksraad calling upon it to enforce them. Eventually in November, 1898, the Executive Council by resolution declared that from 1st January, 1899, local authorities were to compel compliance with the provisions of the law, subject to such concessions as to time—with the extreme limit of six months—as circumstances might demand, and this resolution was being acted upon when the war broke out. I understand that the law has been enforced for the last four years.

  Transvaal Immigration Restrictions.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to Clause 6 of the Immigration Restriction Bill recently enacted by the Transvaal Government, under which any person who may be deemed by the Minister, on reasonable grounds, to be dangerous to the peace, order, and good government of this Colony if he remain therein, may be arrested and removed from the Colony by warrant under the hand of the Minister, and, pending removal, may be detained in such custody as may be prescribed by regulation; and whether, when the measure is submitted for Imperial sanction, His Majesty's Government will represent to the Government of the Transvaal the advisability of withdrawing any clause which empowers Ministers to imprison and deport at their discretion and without trial in time of peace.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have seen the clause referred to, but I have already indicated that no statement can be made as to the action which will be taken by His Majesty's Government until the Bill is received in its final form, reserved as it will be for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure.

  Mortality among Chinese Labourers in South Africa.
  MR. FULLERTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how many indentured Chinese labourers in

  1593
  South Africa died during the month of July, 1907; how many were discharged for repatriation during that month; and what was the total number available for the mines on the 1st August, 1907.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have no official information, but according to a Reuter telegram thirty-three died during the month of July, and one was struck off the strength, leaving 51,441 available for the mines on 1st August.

  Crime among the Chinese in South Africa.
  MR. FULLERTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the total number of crimes committed in South Africa by Chinese coolies up to 31st July, 1907, and the number of convictions for such crimes.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The total number of convictions (for all classes of offences) up to 31st January, 1907, was 24,223. No later figures are available.

  Repatriation of Chinese.
  MR. FULLERTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if the cost of returning the time-expired Chinese labourers to their own country is being borne by the mine owners, or by whom.
  MR. CHURCHILL: By the mine-owners.

  Orange River Colony Regalia.
  MAJOR SEELY: Can the Under-Secretary for the Colonies make arrangements for hon. Members to inspect the new regalia for the Orange River Colony?
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid he had arranged, thanks to the courtesy of the Goldsmiths' Company, that the new Orange River Colony mace and regalia should be placed in the tea-room to-morrow for the inspection of hon. Members who desired to see them.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: As the Crown jewels were stolen from Dublin Castle, will the right hon. Gentleman take care that the same fate will not overtake the Orange River regalia?
  MR. CHURCHILL: The regalia will be adequately guarded.

  White Labour in the Rand Mines.
  MR. FULLERTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the ratio of white to coloured men now employed at the Transvaal mines; what was the number of whites employed for every thousand tons of ore raised in July, 1907; and how does this compare with the number employed before the introduction of Chinese labourers.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The official figures for June and July are not yet available. For the month of May, the proportion of whites to coloured employed in the Transvaal gold mines was 1 to 10·5, as compared with 1 to 5·9 for the month of May, 1904, immediately before the introduction of the Chinese. The number of whites per thousand tons of ore hoisted was, for May, 1907, 10·1; and for May, 1904, 15·9.

  Sino-Burmese Frontier.
  THE EARL OF RONALDSHAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Chinese Government have yet accepted the demarcation of that part of the Sino-Burmese frontier known as Scott's line.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): The Answer is in the negative, and the matter is still under discussion.

  Egyptian Military Service.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the sums paid in Egypt for exemptions from military service in the first four months of 1907 have amounted to £E124,520, as against £E62,580 for the same period of last year; and whether, in view of this drain upon the resources of the poorest inhabitants, any, and what, reform is contemplated in the law of conscription.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have nothing to add to the Answer returned to the Question asked on this subject by the hon. Member on 21st February last.†
  † See (4) Debates, clxix., 1035–6.

  Cairo Girls' School Teachers' Resignations.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Miss Board and Miss Broderick, of the Sanieh Girls' School, Cairo, and Miss Bingham, of the Abbas Girls' School, Cairo, have sent in their resignations to the Egyptian Ministry of Education; if so, whether he can state the grounds of the resignations; whether they are to be replaced by three lady teachers from England; and, if so, whether the latter possess any knowledge of Arabic.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: This is a detail of administration which must be left to the Egyptian Government, and in which I cannot interfere. The question of a knowledge of Arabic is always taken into account when possible.

  Egyptian School of Agriculture.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, by an arrangement between the Egyptian Ministries of Public Works and Finance, it has been decided to offer a monthly allowance of £E10 per month to students entering the School of Agriculture who have obtained primary certificates, and £E12 to those who have obtained the secondary certificate, in order to encourage entries into the school; and whether this subsidising of students is resorted to because the fact that all instruction in the School of Agriculture is given in English has the effect of deterring those who would otherwise enter.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I will inquire as to the facts referred to, but with regard to the assumption in the last part of the Question I must point out that it is quite contrary to the general policy of the Egyptian Government, which has been to give instruction in English where it satisfies a demand, not where it would do the contrary.

  Turco-Persian Frontier Commission.
  MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received any Reports as to the proceedings of the Turco-Persian Joint Commission for the purpose of delimiting the frontier between Turkey and Persia; and whether,
  1596
  in view of the fact that more than a year has now elapsed since the arrival on the spot of the first Commission, and that the delay has been attended by serious border warfare, he will now endeavour, in pursuance of the policy followed in this question since 1843, to bring about a speedy settlement of the dispute in conjunction with the Russian Government.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have no further information. I understand that the Turkish members of the Commission are still at Mosul, and it is stated, though not officially, that they are to proceed to the scene of the recent disturbances to make a joint inquiry with the Persians. With regard to the second part of the hon. Member's Question, His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople has been acting in the matter in consultation with his Russian colleague.

  Turkish Raid into Persia.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the result of representations to the Porte with reference to the incursion of troops on the Persian frontier.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I returned yesterday to the hon. Member for West Nottingham.†

  Brussels Sugar Convention—New General Act.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to communicate the terms of the new general Act adopted by the Permanent Committee of the Brussels Sugar Convention: and whether this Act will have to be ratified by Parliament.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer is in the negative in both cases.

  Kaid Sir Harry Maclean.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs-whether he has official information of the release of Kaid Sir Harry Maclean.
  MR. FELL: May I also ask the Secretary of State for
  † See (4) Debates, clxxx., 1224.
  Foreign Affairs, if he can state whether Kaid Maclean has been released, or what prospects there are of his early release; and if any steps to this end are being taken by the Government.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer is in the negative. As stated in my Answer of the 12th instant, His Majesty's Minister at Tangier is doing all he can to obtain Sir H. Maclean's release. But we have not yet heard that it has been accomplished.
  MR. FELL: Is our Minister in direct communication with the chief who is holding the Kaid, or are the negotiations being made through the Moorish authorities?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: He is taking whatever steps he can to secure the release of the Kaid.

  MR. Abbott's Ransom.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if the ransom paid to the Turkish brigands for the release of Mr. Abbott has been repaid by the Turkish Government; and, if not, when it is expected it will be repaid.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The culprits have been arrested, and a considerable part of the ransom recovered, and I have every reason to hope that a satisfactory settlement of the question will be reached. But I am unable to say more than this at present.

  Employment of Crippled Girls.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been directed to the fact that a concern called Platinum Substitutes, Limited, has started a factory at East Road, Hoxton, in which 30 crippled girls supplied by the Ragged School Union and paid at the rate of 3s. to 5s. a week, plus an allowance for meals, are employed in a process of enamelling copper strips with a coating of glass; whether he can state if those cripples are employed for normal factory hours, whether the certifying surgeon has certified the girls to be fit for such employment; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent the exploitation of cripples in the interests of a joint stock company.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): The Medical Inspector of Factories has furnished me with a report upon the place mentioned in the question. 31 crippled girls and young women are employed in fusing thin pieces of glass on copper strips by means of a blow-pipe flame. The rate of wages paid is, I understand, as stated in the question, except that no allowances are made for meals. Some irregularities in the hours worked occurred when the place was first opened, but the hours, prescribed by the Act are now being observed, and all the girls have been certified by the certifying surgeon. Further inquiries are being made by the Lady Inspectors.

  Motor Bus Breakdowns.
  MR. BOWERMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the inconvenience and annoyance caused to passengers using motor omnibuses by the frequent breaking down of such vehicles; whether the remedy for such inconvenience and annoyance is for the passengers to demand the return of the fares they have paid, or to insist upon being conveyed to their destination by another omnibus belonging to the same company; and whether the police, if appealed to by such passengers, are in a position to insist, upon either of these alternatives being given effect to.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Only one complaint has reached the police of the conductor of an omnibus which had broken down refusing to return the fare. The complainant was referred to a solicitor. The police have no power to decide disputes of this character, or to require either the return of the fare or the continuance of the journey in another omnibus.
  MR. BOWERMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the inconvenience caused to traffic by the number of motor omnibuses, continually breaking down, especially in the more crowded thoroughfares, within the Metropolitan district, thereby obstructing other vehicular traffic in many cases for lengthened periods; whether

  1599
  any special instructions have been given to the police whereby a speedy removal from the streets of such derelict omnibuses may be effected; and, if not, whether he will consider the propriety of taking some action in a matter so greatly affecting the convenience of the community at large.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Motor omnibuses, like all other forms of motor vehicles, occasionally break down, and no regulations can prevent this. No special instructions have been given to the police as to the removal of derelict omnibuses from the streets, but the companies concerned endeavour to minimise the resulting obstruction by employing travelling engineers to remedy defects expeditiously. The omnibuses are carefully inspected before being licensed, and, moreover, as machinery improves, breakdowns are likely to become less frequent.

  Gisuppi Farnaro.
  MR. THORNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Gisuppi Farnaro, a prisoner, who was convicted in May, 1894, by Mr. Justice Hawkins at the Central Criminal Court, has broken down in health; and whether he will consider the question of ordering his immediate release.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The prisoner is in poor health, and is receiving treatment in association in the prison hospital. He is weak minded, though he cannot be certified as insane, and, like other prisoners classed as weak minded, is not subject to the ordinary prison discipline. I regret that, in view of the nature of his crime and his mental condition, I do not feel justified in advising his release.

  Civil Rights of Prison Officials.
  MR. WILES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, considering that regulations now in force in His Majesty's prisons prevent members of the staff' attending the annual conference of the Ex-Naval and Military Civil Servants Association, he can see his way to grant prison officials similar facilities as are given in other Goverment Departments.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have given instructions that members of this Association
  1600
  who are in the prison service should be allowed, subject to the needs of the Service, special leave, without pay, to attend the annual conference of the Association, and that they may also, subject to the same condition, use part of their annual leave for this purpose.

  Bath Magistrates and the Right of Affirmation.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, in a recent case tried before the Bath magistrates, a witness who claimed to affirm was denied the right to do so by the chairman, who is also chairman of the Watch Committee who were the prosecutors; whether the Home Office proposes to take any action in this matter; and whether he will take steps by legislation or otherwise to prevent the chairman of a prosecuting committee taking the chair on the bench when cases from the committee are being tried.
  MR. GLADSTONE: My attention was called to this matter on the 14th instant, and I communicated with the Bath magistrates. I am informed that the witness in question claimed to affirm, but as he declined to state either that he had no religious belief or that taking of an oath was contrary to his religious belief, the conditions prescribed by Section 1 of the Oaths Act, 1888, were not complied with, and the magistrates therefore declined to allow him to affirm. In a previous case tried on the same day the witness had taken the oath without any objection. The prosecution in this case was not ordered by the Watch Committee. I see no ground for any action on my part in the matter.

  Bail for Poor Prisoners.
  MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the letter he sent to justices throughout the country, after consultation with the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief I Justice in August, 1906, recommending that in minor offences they should not detain poor prisoners in prisons pending trial, but should release them on their own recognisances, has been generally acted upon or ignored by the justices; whether he will have a Return made of

  1601
  the length of time between committal to quarter sessions or assizes and trial in all cases during the past twelve months in which bail has been refused and the accused detained in prison with special note of those cases in which the accused has been acquitted; and whether, in cases where his recommendations have been persistently disregarded by benches of magistrates, and accused persons have been unnecessarily imprisoned in consequence, he will place the facts before the Lord Chancellor with a view to further steps being taken in the matter.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I issued such a circular as the hon. Member describes, but it referred to poor prisoners who were not of the "criminal, vagrant or homeless class." Offenders of this class are numerous, and to release them on their own recognisances would, of course, be equivalent to discharging them without trial or punishment. Tables are included every year in the Criminal Statistics showing the number of prisoners released on bail, and the numbers detained in prison, and the numbers of both classes acquitted. To give these tables for broken portions of a year would involve much useless labour and expense, but the figures for 1906 will be published in the autumn and will show, I anticipate, an appreciable improvement. I have no reason to think that my recommendations have been disregarded by the magistrates.

  All-British Steamship Service.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether his attention has been called to the speech of Earl Grey at Halifax, Nova Scotia, declaring that the natural geographical advantages of the Dominion were destroyed by the colossal Imperial blunder of subsidising mail steamers to New York; and whether His Majesty's Government will intimate to the Cunard Company that they are willing to permit that company to substitute a Canadian port for New York in the existing contract.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): I have seen a brief telegraphic summary of a speech by Earl Grey to which my honourable friend doubtless refers. As regards the last part of the question I shall be happy to
  1602
  submit my honourable friend's scheme to the informal Committee which is examining practical proposals for the establishment of an all-British steamship service and I have no doubt that it will be carefully considered together with other schemes having a similar object.
  SIR H. VINCENTasked if the right hon. Gentleman was in a position to tell the House what subsidy it was proposed to give by the Treasury to the all-red route.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEthought that question was rather premature.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERasked if it was not a fact that an alteration in the present mail service would not be justified unless a fast bi-weekly steamship service to Canada were established on a scale equivalent to that afforded by the Cunard Company's present service.
  MR. HAROLD COX: Who is responsible for what is described by Earl Grey as "the colossal Imperial blunder in subsidising mail steamers to New York"?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think that those were the words used by Earl Grey. My recollection is that he was denouncing the Cunard subsidy, and with that I cordially agree.

  Life Insurance.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he has made further inquiries into the action of those insurance companies who issue policies to persons who have no assurable interest in the policies; and if he will consider during the recess whether, by a commission of inquiry or otherwise, this practice can be stopped.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I promised the hon. Member, in reply to a Question he asked me last month to consider any definite information that he could furnish on this point. He has-supplied me with some newspaper cuttings, but I do not find in them such evidence of the existence of the practice complained of as would justify action on the part of the Board of Trade.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: Seeing that this practice is most injurious to that class

  1603
  which is least able to protect itself cannot the right hon. Gentleman take steps to forbid it?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I would do so if I had sufficient evidence.

  Australian Tariff.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been directed to the fact that, under the new Australian preferential tariff, British goods heretofore admitted free of duty, e.g., saws, iron pipes cartridges, &c., will in future be liable to heavy duties calculated entirely to exclude them from Australia; and if he will communicate with Sir William Lyne on the subject, reminding him of the solicitude for British export trade expressed by Mr. Deakin and himself at the Colonial Conference.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am not yet in possession of the complete new Australian tariff and I am consequently unable to form a final opinion in regard to its effect on British trade. I understand, however, that certain articles (including those mentioned in the Question) which were previously free, are now to be subjected to duty.

  Patent Office Fees.
  MR. BARNES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Patent Office fees yield a profit of nearly 100 per cent. over the cost of maintenance, and that the American Patent Office issue patent protection for seventeen years for fees less than those charged by the British office for fourteen years' protection; and, having regard to all the circumstances, will he bring about a reduction of fees in this country in the interest of poor inventors.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am aware that of late years the Patent Office fees have yielded a considerable profit, but at the present time whilst the office expenses are rapidly increasing and new duties are being thrown on the office by the Patents and Designs Bill I can give no undertaking to reduce them; nor do I believe that it would be to the interests of poor inventors to substitute for our present fees those chargeable in the United States which would benefit the
  1604
  comparatively small number of successful inventors at the expense of the much larger number of unsuccessful inventors who can less afford to pay. I will cause to be printed with the votes a statement showing the comparative cost of patents in the United Kingdom and United States respectively.

  Canada and the All-Red Route.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Canadian Government have communicated the extent of the financial support they are prepared to render to the project of an all-red route from Great Britain to Australia across Canada; and whether any statement can yet be made in reference to the proposal.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am unable at the present stage to add anything to what I have already stated to the House on this subject.

  Sugar Refining Industry.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if there has been any increase in the amount of sugar refined in this country since the Sugar Convention came into force; and, if so, can he give the number of additional persons employed in the industry for each year since the Convention.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: There are no official records of the quantity of sugar refined in this country prior to the Sugar Convention coming into force. Since that date the quantities have been as follows:—

  Cwts.

  4 months Sept. to Dec. 1903

  3,662,000

  1904

  11,640,000

  1905

  11,617,000

  1906

  11,833,000

  I am unable to state the numbers of persons employed in this industry for years later than 1901, the date of the last Census.

  Guardians' Offices and Friendly Societies.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether there is any regulation of the Local Government Board forbidding boards of guardians from letting rooms in union offices, subject to a reasonable rental, for the accommodation of trade unions or friendly societies who may wish

  1605
  to hold meetings of their branches or lodges on other than licensed premises.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR. JOHN BURNS,): There is no such regulation. On the contrary, the Local Government Board, whose sanction would be necessary to the letting, have expressed their willingness to give their sanction, subject to the guardians reserving to themselves the power to determine the arrangement should it be found to interfere with the use of the building for poor law purposes.

  Postmen's Wages.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General, with reference to the Report of the Select Committee on Post Office Wages, which recommends that London postmen's wages should range from £49 to £91 a year, whether he is now aware that the Berlin postmen's wages range from £63 to £93 a year; and whether, in view of the fact that German wages generally are lower than British wages, he will level up British postmen's wages to a proper standard.
  I beg also to ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been directed to the fact that, although the London postal porters maximum wages of 30s. per week have not been increased since 1882, or during a period of rather more than 25 years, the Report of the Select Committee on Post Office Wages does not recommend that an increase in that maximum should now be made, while it states that its recommendations are sufficient for a considerable period; and whether, in view of the increased cost of living and the consequent real decrease in wages sustained by the postal porters, he can see his way to increase the maximum to at least £100 a year.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): I will answer these two Questions together. I have already informed my hon. friend that the Report as a whole is receiving my most careful consideration; and I do not think it would be advantageous to enter upon a discussion of particular points in regard to it. But, as he makes a specific comparison between Berlin and London it may be well, in
  1606
  order to avoid misapprehension, to point out that the comparison is inaccurate, and the figures are therefore misleading. Before a Berlin postman can reach the minimum to which my hon. friend refers, he has, I understand, to perform nine or ten years' unestablished service on much lower pay. After a similar length of service the London postman would have arrived at or near the top of his scale. Moreover, the London postman, in addition to the maximum, is eligible for stripe allowances, up to an amount of 6s. a week. Thus the maximum remuneration recommended by the Committee is 41s. a week or about £107 per annum in the case of the Central London postman. In addition there are pension rights, uniforms, boot allowance, sick pay, &c. The hours of the London postman are forty-eight a week; those of the Berlin postman are, I understand, considerably longer.

  Telegraphists and Volunteer Camps.
  MR. CLELAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been directed to the fact that telegraphists in the postal service who attend the annual camp training of their Volunteer battalion have either a week's pay deducted or lose a week's leave; and whether he will take steps to place these telegraphists, when attending such annual camps, on the same footing as other members of the Civil Service.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: In accordance with a general Treasury ruling, leave with pay is not granted to officers of the Post Office for the purpose of attending Volunteer camps. I have no power to modify these arrangements.

  Cost of West African Mail Service.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General what sums have been paid for the carriage of mails to and from the West Coast of Africa during each of the last three years; and what average rate this represents per pound carried.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The sums paid for mails sent in both directions were as follows:—

  Year.

  £.

  1904–5

  17,499

  1905–6

  17,660

  1906–7

  18,160

  These amounts include payment for foreign and inter-colonial mails. The materials available do not admit of a statement of the rate of payment per pound except in the case of correspondence despatched from this country, for which the rate is estimated to be 6½d. per pound.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General what shipping companies received payments for carrying mails to the West Coast of Africa during the last completed financial year; and how much each company received.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The particulars are as follows:—African Steamship Company, £7,224; British and African Steam Navigation Company (1900) Limited, £10,936. These amounts include payment for the mails in both directions.

  Mortomley School Teachers' Salary.
  LORD EDMUND TALBOT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is satisfied that the salaries due to the teachers of the Catholic school at Mortomley are now actually paid by the local authority of the West Riding.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA, Monmouthshire, N.): I understand that the salaries due will be paid forthwith.

  Board of Education Medical Bureau.
  SIR PHILIP MAGNUS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he will state what will be the constitution and personnel of the medical bureau to be attached to the Board of Education, with the view to giving guidance and advice to the medical officers to be appointed by local education authorities to undertake the medical inspection of the children in public elementary schools.
  MR. MCKENNA: I am in communication with the Treasury on this matter, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

  Christopher Wharton's School at Stamford Bridge.
  LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of
  1608
  Education whether he is aware that in October, 1905, the Board of Education sanctioned the use of the endowment of Christopher Wharton's foundation for the erection of a non-provided school at Stamford Bridge, and that on the faith of that sanction, land was conveyed as a site for the school; whether, in June of this year, the Board of Education withdrew their sanction, alleging as a reason altered circumstances; and, if so, why the Board changed the decision which they had in their quasi-judicial capacity arrived at in 1905.
  MR. MCKENNA: The Board of Education did not in October, 1905, or at any other time, sanction, whether in a quasi-judicial capacity or otherwise, the use of this endowment for the erection of a non-provided school. The Board did, however, inform the trustees of the endowment in December, 1905, that the-proposals made by them—which involved the use of the endowment money for the purposes of the rebuilding, but, so far as the Board were then aware, not the enlargement of an existing non-provided school—could only be carried out on the authority of a scheme; and in January, 1906, the Board, in order to assist the trustees, drafted a scheme under Section 75 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, which the trustees might, if they thought fit, submit for the Board's approval. The trustees took exception to certain provisions of the suggested draft scheme, and it was not until April, 1907, that they adopted it as their own, and submitted it for the approval of the Board. In the meantime it had appeared that the proposals of the trustees involved a substantial enlargement in the numbers of school places provided in the school, which was not before the Board in the original proposal. Moreover, circum stances affecting the position and prospects of non-provided schools in the Kingdom generally, which are as familiar to the noble Lord as to myself, had occurred which, in the view of the Board, rendered it undesirable in the interests of the Foundation itself that eudowment money should be sunk in the provision of public school accommodation in non-provided schools.

  Walpole House Farm, Norfolk.
  MR. GRETTON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset,

  1609
  as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what rent has been agreed to be paid to the Crown for that portion of the Walpole House Farm in Norfolk which is to be converted into small holdings?
  THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY, Somersetshire, S.): The amount of rent is £697 10s. 0d. per annum for the first two years and £775 per annum thereafter, and in addition the lessees will pay interest at four per cent. on the expenditure (estimated at about £3,800) that may be made by the Crown in providing the necessary houses, buildings, fencing, etc.
  MR. GRETTON: How many acres have been converted into small holdings?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Roughly speaking 560; 360 are to be let with the old building.
  SIR F. BANBURY: What was the previous rent?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The rent now will be the same as before.

  All-Red Pacific Cable.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the loss, if any, upon last year's working of the all-red Pacific Cable, and how much of that loss, if any, falls upon the taxpayers of this country.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): The accounts of the Pacific Cable for the year 1906–7 have recently been published (Parliamentary Paper No. 250). These accounts are drawn, as required by the Act, to include among the working expenses of the cable the terminable annuity of £77,544 18s., which will repay the capital outlay on the cable in a term of fifty years. On this basis the accounts show a deficiency for the year of £54,923 12s. 2d., of which the portion payable by the taxpayers of the United Kingdom is £15,256 11s. 2d. If the cable were charged merelywith the interest payable on the borrowed capital, namely, £60,000 a year, instead of being charged with the annuity for repayment, the total deficiency would be reduced to
  1610
  £37,378 14s. 2d., and the British share would be reduced in proportion. It may be pointed out, also, that the working expenses include a sum of £33,000 carried to renewal account.

  Second Division Clerks—Annual Leave.
  MR. RENDALL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Second Division clerks appointed prior to the Order in Council of 21st March, 1890, are, almost without exception, allowed leave to the extent of twenty-eight days per annum; whether the maximum leave of Second Division clerks appointed subsequent to that Order is twenty-one days per annum and whether he will consider the desirability of amending the regulations in any future Order in Council by allowing, after ten years service, a maximum of twenty-eight days leave for all Second Division clerks.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I have no information as to the number of Second Division clerks appointed prior to the Order in Council of 21st March, 1890, who are allowed twenty-eight days leave per annum; the maximum amount of ordinary annual leave allowed by that Order in Council is twenty-one days in addition to Christmas Day, Good Friday, the King's Birthday, and, subject to the convenience of the public service, the four Bank Holidays, and a half holiday on alternate Saturdays. I am not prepared to recommend any extension of this maximum.

  Free Grant Account—Credit Balance.
  MR. J. D. WHITE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, with reference to the annual fee grant of £40,000, the amount of the Scottish share of the Customs and Excise which, by Section 2 (ii) of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890, is to be applied in relief of the payment of school fees of children in State-aided schools in Scotland, together with the annual balance of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account referred to in Section 2 (6) of The Education and Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1892, which by that Act is to be applied as a supplement to that fee grant in Scotland, and is to be distributed accordingly, and which amounted to more than £37,000 in the last financial year; if he can state for what reason and under what authority these revenues, instead of being

  1611
  expended annually as fee grants, have been accumulated to such an extent that the credit balance of the Fee Grant Account, at the end of the last financial year, amounted to more than £113,000; and whether he can say to what purposes it is intended to devote these accumulated funds.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The credit balance in question has fluctuated from year to year, owing to the variation in the amount received under the Act of 1892, which amount was in some years actually nil. In view of this circumstance, it has not seemed desirable hitherto to raise the fee grant beyond the rate of 12s. per child in average attendance. Now, however, that the balance has attained the figure named by the hon. Member, it is a question whether this rate might not be somewhat increased.

  Arrochar Pier, Loch Long.
  MR. J. D. WHITE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can say how many persons landed and embarked at Arrochar Pier, Loch Long, in 1906.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I have no responsibility with reference to this pier, and have no information which is not equally accessible to my hon. friend.

  Dundee Police Wages.
  MR. WILKIE: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state the nature of the intricate questions as regards the reasonable amount of advance proposed by the Dundee City Council to be given to the policemen of that city; what are the rates of pay of similar police forces as compared with Dundee; and what is the amount of advance approved by the Department.
  MR. SINCLAIR: Questions involving increase of pay have to be considered in the light of the pay and advantages enjoyed by other forces in a more or less similar position. The advance recently accorded to the Dundee Police place them in a position of equality with the best paid forces outside those of Edinburgh, Glasgow, and the immediate vicinity of these towns. If the hon. Member desires further particulars I shall be happy to supply them for his personal information.

  Dundee Police Clothing.
  MR. WILKIE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland upon what principle does the Scottish Department base their grant of 40 per cent. of the cost of police clothing, and what are the regulations as regards the price and quality of the cloths supplied, as it is asserted that the Dundee contractors are unable to compete for the police clothing owing to the conditions fixed by the Scottish Department.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The percentage of grant varies from year to year, the amount available for distribution being fixed and the amount of outlay which it has to meet being variable. The auditors admit charges for the various items required for police clothing up to a fixed maximum. For information as to the regulations regarding police clothing, I may refer the hon. Member to the rules issued in 1892 of which I shall be happy to give him a copy.
  In reply to a further Question.
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid he understood that a maximum price was fixed for each article of clothing, but the authorities were given full discretion as to how and where to obtain them.

  Musselburgh Tramway Strike.
  MR. SEDDON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has read a leading article in the Edinburgh Evening Despatch of 3rd August, in which it was stated that policemen's batons were most effective arguments in the Musselburgh tramway strike, and whether in view of this direct incentive to violence, he could use his good offices among the men on strike to maintain law and order.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I think such statements are greatly to be deprecated, and I am willing to do all I can in the direction desired.

  Mr. Timothy Rorke.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Lord-Chancellor of Ireland has arrived at any conclusion with reference to the continuance of Mr. Timothy Rorke upon the Commission of the Peace.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.): The Lord-Chancellor informs me that he has suspended Mr. Timothy Rorke from sitting as a magistrate until further order, and he is still under that suspension.

  Benmore Outrage.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any persons have been made amenable for the offence of shooting and wounding Thomas Corcoran, junior, of Benmore, near Loughrea, on the night of 21st July, and, if not, what is the reason for the failure to bring the perpetrators of this outrage to justice.
  MR. BIRRELL: Three persons were arrested for this offence. The case was heard by the resident magistrate at Loughrea, on the 9th instant, when the accused were discharged owing to the insufficiency of the evidence.

  Mr. Grinnell, M.P., and Cattle Driving.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has perused the official report of the speech delivered by the hon. Member for North Westmeath at Strokestown, county Roscommon, on Sunday, when the hon. Member said that the cattle ought to be driven off the ranches, and that the people of Strokestown ought to relieve the pressure on the people of other parishes by giving some occupation to the police thereabouts; and whether he proposes to take action with reference to such incitements to lawless conduct.
  MR. BIRRELL: The transcript of the shorthand writer's notes in this case has not yet reached my hands.

  Fohenagh Farm Dispute.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Sir Antony MacDonnell has assured the Rev. Mr. Martin, of Ballintubber, that if the United Irish League would give him a guarantee that there would be no further disturbance in the district he would withdraw the extra police who are in the district for the protection of the cattle on the Fohenagh farm, and would see that this farm was divided at the earliest moment; and, if so, under whose instructions
  1614
  Sir Antony MacDonnell was acting when he entered into negotiations with the United Irish League, and what differentiates the Fohenagh farm from others from which cattle have been driven that the Government should adopt this course of negotiation, instead of attempting to vindicate the law by prosecuting those supposed to be guilty.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am aware that a report to the effect mentioned in the first part of the Question appeared in a newspaper, but Sir Antony MacDonnell informed me at the time that the report was incorrect. The Rev. Mr. Martin asked Sir Antony MacDonnell to have the police removed from the farm in question, and Sir Antony replied that he would like to have an assurance that the cattle would not be driven off again. Father Martin said he could give no absolute guarantee, but would do all in his power to prevent further interference with the farm, and he believed there would be none. As a result the large force of police at the farm was reduced. No reference to the United Irish League was made by either Sir Antony or Father Martin. Full measures for vindicating the law in this case have been taken. The Attorney-General sent up a Bill against a number of persons at the last assizes, and an adjournment was obtained in order to move for a change of venue. The case is pending.
  MR. MOOREasked whether it was the policy of the right hon. Gentleman to abdicate the powers of the Government where assurances could be received from local influential people.
  MR. BIRRELL: No, Sir; I never abdicate.

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants— System of Inspection.
  MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he proposes to continue the present system under which assistant inspectors first report on claims for reinstatement by alleged evicted tenants and are then required to supervise any sanctioned reinstatements in the same districts and make payment to them of authorised grants and advances from the reserve

  1615
  fund, or whether he will consider the advisability of arranging that these important duties should be discharged by different officers.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the system referred to in the Question was a good one, and worked satisfactorily, and I am not aware of any reason why it should not be continued. I may, however, mention that the special staff of assistant inspectors for evicted tenants' cases has recently been dispensed with, and the expenditure of free grants and advances from the reserve fund is now supervised by the ordinary staff.
  MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the reports of assistant inspectors, appointed to investigate claims of alleged evicted tenants, are subjected to any system of checking before being adopted by the Estates Commissioners.
  MR. BIRRELL: The reports of assistant inspectors are carefully examined and checked before being adopted by the Estates Commissioners, but, of course, a second inspector is not sent to the locality to inquire afresh into the case unless some special necessity should arise.

  Jacob Estate, South Wexford.
  MR. FERENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say if the Jacob tenants, South Wexford, and their landlord have agreed regarding the purchase of the estate by the tenants; and if the agent, Mr. G. L. Taylor, Fethard, has refused to entertain the claim of Mrs. Marshall, evicted tenant, to purchase her farm.
  MR. BIRRELL: No proceedings for the sale of this estate have been instituted before the Estates Commissioners, and they have no knowledge of any negotiations for sale. No application for reinstatement has been received from Mrs. Marshall.

  The Outrage at Glenahira Lodge.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he had received any information with reference to the attempt to murder Lord
  1616
  Ashtown by blowing up his residence at Glenahira, county Waterford, on Tuesday night; whether he knew that the explosive was placed directly beneath the room which Lord Ashtown was occupying; what number of police were stationed in the vicinity, and what personal protection did the police afford Lord Ashtown while he was at Glenahira.
  MR. BIRRELL: I have received a telegraphic report, but full details are not yet to hand. It is the fact that an explosion took place yesterday morning at Lord Ashtown's shooting lodge at Waterford. The explosive was contained in a metal pot placed on the sill of the window immediately below the room in which Lord Ashtown was sleeping. The window was blown in and the furniture damaged, but I am glad to say that Lord Ashtown and the servants escaped injury. Some paraffin bottles containing oil were found by the police, who are pursuing their inquiries. Lord Ashtown has declined to receive personal protection, but the police are affording him protection by means of patrols. The question of extending the protection is being considered by the police authorities.
  MR. BELLOC: On whose evidence was this information—on Lord Ashtown's?
  MR. BIRRELL: It is derived from an inspection of the spot made by the police.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNORasked whether the inquiries would be continued, bearing in mind the revelations as to a certain Constable Sheridan, so as to ascertain that the outrage was not committed by some such agent provocateur.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGasked whether the damage caused by the explosion was so great that the mantelpiece in the bedroom of Lord Ashtown was detached from the wall.
  MR. MACVEAGHasked whether Lord Ashtown had not stated in an interview that he knew it was an outrage before he left his bedroom.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid that he would road the telegraphic despatch, which was as follows:—"The injury to Lord Ashtown's lodge was caused by placing a metal pot

  1617
  containing, it is believed, a large quantity of blasting powder on one of the window sills of the drawing-room directly beneath his lordship's bedroom. The pot had a metal cover which was flattened down by an iron band with nuts on end. There were four holes in the cover for the purpose of inserting a fuse. Three broken bottles, which contained paraffin oil, were found on the ground. The window and the shutter of the same where the pot was placed were blown into the room, curtains, etc., caught fire, and some articles of furniture were broken, as well as a quantity of the woodwork. The glass of three other windows was also broken, walls were slightly cracked in many places, and the mantelpiece in Lord Ashtown's bedroom partly torn from the wall. Lord Ashtown and four servants were sleeping in the lodge, but none were injured."

  Belfast Postmen's Grievances.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that considerable inconvenience is occasioned to those members of the postal staff in Belfast who have to deliver letters, by reason of the fact that they are frequently detailed to a district remote from their own residences and are in consequence unable, or have very little time, to get to and from their homes for meals in the intervals between their spells of duty; and whether arrangements could be made whereby men should the detailed, as far as possible, for duty in districts convenient to their homes.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am having inquiry made on the subject and will acquaint the hon. Member with the result.

  Rosslare Pier Telegraph Office.
  MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether any conclusion has yet been arrived at with reference to the establishment of a telegraph office at Rosslare pier; and whether any progress has been made regarding the giving of a second delivery at those villages in South Wexford through which the Rosslare line passes.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I hope that arrangements will shortly be made with the railway company for opening a telegraph office at Rosslare pier. My inquiries with regard to further improvement
  1618
  of the postal arrangements at places in the neighbourhood of the Rosslare Railway in South Wexford, have made considerable progress, but they affect a large district and it has not yet been possible to complete them. I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I am able to arrive at a decision.

  Friendly Societies and the Taxation of Land Values.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he has received a resolution from the delegates of the Hearts of Oak Benefit Society, representing more than 300,000 members, requesting the Government that when they deal with the question of taxing land values they will take into consideration the desirability of exempting friendly societies from the operation of such Act; whether he is aware that many other friendly and building societies hold large investments in land values; and whether he can give any general assurance which will remove the alarm that has been created by the proposals made by some of his supporters.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir HENRY CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): No, Sir, I have not received the resolution in question. I shall always be glad to give any assurance in my power which may tend to remove alarm in whatever quarter it may exist; and my hon. friend is quite free to make it known that His Majesty's Government will endeavour in this and other matters to act with justice and consideration.

  Proposed New Judge.
  MR. FULLERTON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, before appointing another Judge to the King's Bench Division, he will take stops to have the present circuit system re-organised.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Address from the House to the King, as well as the Address from the other House, was founded on the urgent state of business in the High Court. It would not be consistent with the course taken by Parliament to delay the appointment of the Judge.

  County of London Area.
  MR. CAVE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he

  1619
  has expressed agreement with the proposals recently brought before him by a deputation of London Liberal Members, including proposals for a wider extension of the area of the county of London; whether he contemplates dealing with the question of extension by means of a Government Bill; and whether, before coming to a decision on the matter, he will take steps to ascertain, by public inquiry or otherwise, the opinion of the inhabitants and local authorities of the districts which it may be proposed to bring into the London area.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: A wider extension of the area of the county of London was one of the many objects brought before me by a deputation of London Members, and I agree with them that it is a desirable object, but the Government have come to no conclusion as to the time at which or the form in which it may be best attained.
  MR. CAVEasked if the Prime Minister could give him the assurance he had asked for in the latter part of the Question.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANreplied that naturally the views of the population in the districts concerned would be an important factor in the situation.
  MR. REESasked if the right hon. Gentleman would see that the feeling of the inhabitants of the suburban districts, in respect of the drastic and far-reaching changes proposed, was not overlooked?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If the suburban Members come to me in the same way that the London Members have done, I shall be happy to receive them.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked as to the business for next week.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that to-morrow, after the Third Reading of the English Land Bill, some of the smaller orders on the Paper would be taken. On Monday, the Second Reading of the Transvaal Loan Bill would be
  1620
  taken; on Tuesday, the Report Stage of the Scottish Land Values Bill; and on Wednesday, probably the Second Reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill would be taken. The Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill would be put dawn as first order on Monday.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that it was the ordinary practice for the work of the session to conclude with the Appropriation Bill, which gave opportunity for the discussion of urgent public questions. He suggested that the Third Reading of the Bill should be reserved, as there were several outstanding questions which the hon. Members would like to discuss.
  MR PATRICK O'BRIENasked when the relics of the late Evicted Tenants Bill would be taken.
  MR. LYTTELTON(St. George's, Hanover Square) pointed out that by arrangement with the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury the preliminary stages of the Transvaal Loan Bill had been regarded as purely formal on the distinct understanding that the whole day would be given for the Second Reading. That arrangement would not be fulfilled if the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill as put down as first order on Monday.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. GEORGE WHITELEY,)said that he understood that it was necessary that the Appropriation Bill should be in another place on Monday, and that the Third Reading would be a purely formal stage If it were not he agreed that it could not be taken as first order on Monday, but that the Transvaal Loan Bill must have precedence.
  LORD R. CECILasked why it was necessary to send the Appropriation Bill to another place on Monday.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH, Fifeshire, E.)said that the money was wanted for the public services. The Royal Assent ought to be obtained at the latest on Tuesday.
  MR. BOTTOMLEYasked whether any day would be given for the Motion which stood on the Paper for an address to annul the rule relating to the appointment of a Public Trustee. The rule had already lain on the Table for half the required thirty days.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I not only fear, but I am certain that the exigencies of public business will not allow us to give such a day.
  MR. BOTTOMLEYasked whether the Act of Parliament which conferred on the House the right to discuss this most important matter could be defeated by the exigencies of Party interest.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that in ordinary circumstances it would have been possible for the hon. Member to raise a discussion after 11 o'clock at night; but the House had passed a Resolution that on the conclusion of Government business the Speaker should declare the House to stand adjourned. By passing that Resolution, the House had deprived itself of the power of discussing such a Motion as the hon. Member desired to bring forward. It was open to the hon. Member to have voted against the Resolution on that ground.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: No doubt I shall have an opportunity on the Appropriation Bill.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member, in putting down his Motion, has himself pat down a blocking notice.
  MR. BOTTOMLEYasked whether on the Appropriation Bill it was not competent for any Member to discuss any subject.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that the rule against anticipation applied.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to give notice that I will withdraw my blocking Notice.

  VACCINATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time on Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 317.]
  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND AMENDMENT BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time on Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 323.]
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  "To make further provision with respect to Education in England and Wales," presented by Mr. Higham: to be read a second time upon Friday, 23rd August, and to be printed. [Bill 323.]
  NEW BILL.
    EMPLOYMENT OF BRITISH SUBJECTS ABROAD BILL.
    "To prohibit the engagement of British subjects for service in the place of workmen locked out on a strike in Foreign countries," presented by Mr. Crooks; supported by Mr. Shackleton, Mr. Curran, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. William Abraham (Rhondda), Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Macpherson, Mr. Brace, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Enoch Edwards, Mr. John Ward, and Mr. Fenwick; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next and to be printed. [Bill 324.]
  MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL.
  Lords' Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
  POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
  Lords' Amendment to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
  PROBATION OF OFFENDERS BILL.
  Lords' Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.

  COMPANIES BILL [LORDS].
  Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 310].
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 310.]
  Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 321.]

  STANDING COMMITTEE ON SCOTTISH BILLS.
  Ordered, that the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills have leave to sit Tomorrow during the sitting of the House.—(The Lord Advocate.)

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  Order for the Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the second time."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it was convenient, it was certainly not unusual, that they should take the opportunity of the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill to make some survey of the Government proceedings during the course of the session. He did not propose that afternoon to survey the whole field of Government activities. He intended to confine his remarks to the action of the Government with regard to the business of the House and to the condition to which they had, by their methods and their programme, reduced that Assembly. He did not believe there was any man on either side of the House, or belonging to any section of the House, who did not agree with him that there was matter for the gravest reflection and the most anxious meditation with regard to recent Parliamentary procedure, and that they could derive but small contentment from the announcement which the Government had made that they were not wholly dead to the class of questions which he meant to bring before them, but proposed to devote their minds to their consideration during the winter months. Let the House consider for one moment, apart from the discussion of any particular controversial measure, how far it had carried out, or was under existing circumstances able to carry out, its two great fundamental and essential duties—the duty of legislation and the duty of criticism, the duty of dealing with the legislative proposals brought forward by His Majesty's Ministers, the duty of dealing, by comment, adverse or otherwise,
  1624
  with the executive actions of the Administration. Under neither of those heads had the House of Commons been able to carry out, nor could it conceivably carry out, the two primary duties with which it was entrusted by the country, and for which the country should hold it responsible. There were two great novelties in the course of the present session, for which, though not wholly without precedent, the precedents had been immensely exceeded, and by which they had been brought under a system of administration hitherto wholly unknown to the House. The first point to which he would venture to call the attention of the Prime Minister, the Government, and the House was the way in which Grand Committees had been worked. In the first place, he could not see how the Government were to escape from the charge of having, if not deliberately, at all events completely, broken the solemn pledges entered into by Ministers of the Crown when they asked the House to adopt their new system of Grand Committees. He had made this charge before in the presence of the Prime Minister. He had given at least one quotation on which he rested it; but never as yet had the right hon. Gentleman condescended to reply to what was a serious charge, and certainly a definite one. He would read again, to remind the right hon. Gentleman of the facts, two quotations from speeches made by responsible Ministers of the Crown when they were passing the new rules establishing Grand Committees on their novel basis. The first was from a speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, who was, next to the Prime Minister, the Minister in charge of the new rules. This was what he said on 26th March—
  "It was the intention of the Government that all important controversial Bills should be discussed in the House, and not in Grand Committee."
  For his own part, he was unable to conceive of a pledge uttered in more precise and explicit language, nor had he ever known such a pledge which was more obviously and plainly violated by the subsequent policy of the Government. But it might be said that the right hon. Gentleman, though an important member of the Administration, was not its head, and that he misinterpreted the view of the Leader of the House when he gave

  1625
  vent to that explicit declaration of intention. He would, therefore, quote from the Prime Minister himself. The Prime Minister, on 25th March, said—
  "The Government had no desire to send the great measures of the session, which almost necessarily were controversial, to Grand Committees. They would still be retained under the control of the House."
  It really could not seriously be pretended that the Government had kept either to the spirit or to the letter of those two distinct and explicit promises. They stood there as violations of the solemn declarations of the Government made to the House, and on the faith of which the House passed the new rules, and within a few months, within a few weeks, after those declarations were so solemnly made, they were completely and absolutely broken alike in form and substance, alike in letter and in spirit. That was the first point which he wished to make as to Grand Committees, but it was not the only one. When the right hon. Gentleman was pressing upon the House the propriety of this new expedient of his, the Opposition urged upon him that the labours thrown upon those Members of the House who had both to serve on the Grand Committees and to do their work as Members in the House would be of so exhausting a character that it was quite impossible that it should be adequately carried out until human nature and the human organism were much more vigorous than they were at present. They urged on the Government that both the Ministers and the Members would find the labours of these Committees far greater than they could stand. Who doubted that that was so? The right hon. Gentleman himself came down to the House the other day and explained that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the English Land Bill had gone away for a week's holiday because he had found the work in Grand Committee of so exhausting and exacting a kind. He was not surprised. It was an intolerably severe strain when Members were asked to work from twelve o'clock to three, but he was perfectly certain that, when they asked them to work from eleven to four, and sometimes longer, they really were throwing a burden upon Members of that House which it was impossible for any human shoulders to bear. In that respect he ventured to point out that the prophecies they made about these new rules had been amply
  1626
  confirmed by the experience. That was not all. He complained as a Member who had not served on these Grand Committees, and he thought others would probably feel the same cause of grievance, that they had no opportunity of hearing the details of the Bills discussed upstairs. The Prime Minister had gone on the supposition that a Committee was representative of the House, that everything which the Committee did might be regarded as done by the House, that everything the committee discussed might be regarded as discussed by the House, and that everything which was known to the fifty or sixty gentlemen who sat on the Committee was known to the 670 gentlemen who formed that Assembly. That was an impossible position. It was one of those conventions which had no relation whatever to fact. No one who was not on the Committee could know what was the sort of arguments, what was the sort of trend of opinion which the critics and the defenders of a Bill alike pursued; and, when the Bill came down to the House for the brief discussion which they were permitted on the Report stage, they were totally ignorant of what had taken place upstairs for any purpose which could really enlighten them as to the movement of opinion and the course of argument. And observe the extraordinary irony of the position. The Opposition pointed out when the rules were before them that the House had laid down certain standing orders with regard to the discussion of financial matters which made it possible for a Committee upstairs to deal with finance, but made it impossible for the House to deal with finance on Report. The right hon. Gentleman refused to modify those regulations, and the result had been that measures which touched very closely upon financial proposals might be discussed in Committee by fifty or sixty gentlemen, but when they came down to the House they were precluded from raising points, however great might be their importance, if they in the smallest degree trenched upon the sacred precincts of public money. That was an impossible position in which to place the mass of the House. Let them take what happened on the English Land Bill. There was a considerable body of opinion largely represented below the gangway which desired to see some modification of the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman

  1627
  opposite with regard to the source from which the funds should come for carrying out the policy of increasing the number of small holders in England. There could not be a question touching more the central problem of land policy. That central problem was withdrawn from their notice. Mr. Speaker ruled, as he was bound to rule, that they could not deal with it; and so they were face to face with this extraordinary and paradoxical result, that the rules which the House laid down to protect the public Exchequer had prevented its discussing that which most nearly touched its interests. And that evil was going to be an increasing evil. This House was deeply pledged to what was called social reform. Social reform was inextricably mixed up with questions of public finance, and the result of these rules was that they would never be able on the Report stage—the only stage left them for dealing with the details of a Bill in the whole House—to touch those monetary provisions which were the very sinew of any proposals of that kind, and without freely discussing which it was impossible to discuss the questions of policy brought forward in those Bills.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): You could not do it under the old system.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the right hon. Gentleman had mistaken his point. It was perfectly true that even the discussions in Committee of the whole House were limited by the terms of the original Resolution; but there was the further limitation which prevented them dealing on the Report stage with things which could perfectly well be dealt with on the Committee stage, and the only way of dealing with them was to re-commit the Bill, and—especially under closure—it was only the Government themselves who could propose that a Bill should be re-committed. So much for the Grand Committees. They had been used in defiance of Government pledges; they had been used to the utter exhaustion of many of the most active Members of the House; they deprived other Members of a privilege which they before enjoyed of taking part in the Whole House on the Committee
  1628
  stage of controversial and important Bills; and, finally, they had absolutely removed from the Whole House, at any stage, the power of discussing any financial proposal. A more damaging indictment could hardly be urged against a system which the right hon. Gentleman—again under the guillotine—urged them to adopt four months ago. He passed from the Grand Committees to the guillotine. Let it be remembered that the Government came in as the advocates of Parliamentary liberties. They were pleased to say that the late Government deprived the House of liberty of discussion. Let anybody compare the proceedings under the late Government with regard to the guillotining of Bills with the proceedings under His Majesty's present advisors. The guillotine had already been applied this session on no less than five separate occasions—upon four Bills, and upon their discussion on the Rules of the House. The guillotine had been applied before, by other Governments, Conservative, Unionist, Radical, and Liberal, but never, except perhaps once under Mr. Gladstone's Government, had the guillotine been applied at the beginning of the Committee stage of a Bill. As everybody knew, when once the guillotine had fallen there was an end of satisfactory debate. He would take an example. The Education Bill, 1902, was a Bill that was guillotined, and no doubt the ordinary result followed. But before the guillotine was put on there was free discussion, and everybody who would honestly look through the debates would admit that there was no great principle of that Bill that was not discussed and re-discussed almost ad nauseam. Let them take another example, the Bill dealing with the local authorities in Wales. That Bill was one of a single principle, which could really be almost exhaustively discussed upon Second Reading. It was discussed altogether twelve days in Committee. Six of those days were passed before the closure was applied, and the discussion before the the guillotine was applied was, and always must be, wholly different in character from the discussion which took place after that drastic operation had been performed.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): I think the right

  1629
  hon. Gentleman is not correct. We only had a single day.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had not verified the quotation, and it might be another Bill.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA, Monmouthshire, N.): The Licensing Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, it was the Licensing Bill. That Bill took eleven days in Committee and six days before the guillotine was put on. At all events, on the Education (Defaulting Authorities) Bill there was only one principle involved, and in that case the House had an opportunity of discussing, without the guillotine, a proposal which was vehemently objected to. Let them compare that case with another case of dealing with great local authorities of which they had had recent example. The Government brought in a Land Bill for England, and they had put every county council, every district council, and every parish council under the control, for certain purposes, of a central authority, which was directed by the Bill, in certain circumstances, to coerce them. That might be a very proper proposal, just as he thought the Welsh Bill was a very proper proposal; but it was a very important proposal. It was a proposal which touched the very central nerve ganglion of English public life; it touched the relation between Parliament and the great bodies which Parliament had brought into existence to deal with local affairs. He could imagine no point more deserving of the consideration of the House, or one which touched more nearly the general organisation of the country; yet under the plan of the Government it had not been considered by that House for an hour, or even a quarter of an hour. No more striking example of the way in which the Government had misused their power could be given than the way in which they had treated the county councils. But it was not only in relation to Grand Committees and the use of the guillotine that he made his complaint against the Government. They had prevented the House from carrying out its full function in connection with the criticism of administration, a function not less important than the function of criticism of legislative projects. The House spent 22 days under
  1630
  guillotine—about a month of Parliamentary time—and during that period, at the very height of Parliamentary activity and when public attention was most concentrated on public affairs, they had been deprived of any use whatever of the expedient of moving the adjournment of the House upon questions of urgent public importance. That was an interference with the liberties of the House on the part of a Government which had appointed a Committee to deal with blocking notices. If individual Members who put down blocking Motions were criminals, what was the depth of iniquity of the Government themselves, who had for a month deprived the House of Commons of one of its most important rights? But that was not all. The Government, in his opinion, had grossly misused the Supply rule. They had not given the additional three days which it had been customary to give. By itself that was not a matter of great importance, but it was important when they bore in mind that the Government had by that means entirely avoided adequate criticism either upon their Irish administration or upon their education administration. The Chief Secretary for Ireland was in his place, and he was sure that there was nobody who would welcome criticism more than the right hon. Gentleman, and there was no one who would find more joy in his answers than hon. Gentlemen in all quarters. But the right hon. Gentleman had had no chance of replying to them nor they of criticising him as to the state of Ireland. Could it be said that the state of Ireland was such as to cause no anxiety, or that the general administration of the country was a source of universal satisfaction to all Irishmen and also to all who were interested in the fate of Ireland? The Chief Secretary would be the first to admit that profound anxiety existed with regard to the internal condition of largo parts of the country, and that nothing could be worse either for the duties of the House or for himself, or for his critics, than that the Chief Secretary's Vote should be put down in the dinner hour upon one night in the whole session. At a time when much anxiety was being caused in Ireland, the light hon. Gentleman was not permitted to give his critics a chance of surveying his administration as a whole and bringing against it charges which in their opinion the Chief Secretary for the time being ought to

  1631
  meet. The Education Vote no doubt had a night devoted to its discussion, but the President of the Board of Education would forgive him if he said that his administration was of a kind which required more than one night adequately to deal with it; and his general proceedings had been so aggressive that he should have been especially careful to see that his critics had a full opportunity of explaining their case, and he an adequate opportunity of defending himself. He would remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman had without a shadow of excuse asked Parliament in the Appropriation Bill to violate the law in the interests of one section of public educational opinion; and the money which he was asking the House illegally to vote was to be expended upon one class of schools, and one class only. Even if that incident in the right hon. Gentleman's official career stood alone, he should have requested the Prime Minister to devote more time than had been given to the Education Estimates. It was true that they had had one night since the Government policy was declared, but that night was interrupted by private business. And let it be remembered that the incident of the illegal vote of £100,000 was by no means the only and worst administrative action for which the right hon. Gentleman had made himself responsible. They knew that he had administratively used his Department to bribe or to threaten secondary schools to modify their governing bodies and to alter their system of religious teaching in the interests of one particular section of public opinion and against the wishes of the parents using the schools. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] They knew that he had compelled the parents of Roman Catholic children in one of the parishes in Yorkshire, who desired to have a school of their own, and who were building a school of their own, to send their children against their will into the board school.
  MR. MCKENNA: Which parish is that?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Low Valley.
  MR. MCKENNA: It was not I who closed that school; it was the hon. Baronet opposite who preceded me.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: That is so. But the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware that the parents have since at their own charge provided and maintained a school which he declines to sanction, contrary to the principles of the Act of 1902.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not know that the right hon. Gentleman had gained much by the interruption, but doubtless the matter would be further debated. The right hon. Gentleman was alleged not to have held the balance equally with regard to some of the schools in Wales, and undoubtedly he had not done all he could to help those unfortunate teachers whom the county council of Merionethshire desired to deprive of their well-earned holiday. A Minister who did these things ought to provide ample opportunity for their discussion. It was not right that, with time under the Supply rule at the disposal of the Government, a Minister should escape either making an explanation of his general policy or the duty of defending himself for particular acts of what they considered maladministration. The evils which the right hon. Gentleman had done, and was doing, by his use of his executive powers did not stop with his own Department. Let them remember that every measure of the present Government, and possibly of their predecessors, tended to throw more and more upon the central departments of the Government, on whose fairness, irrespective of Party, it had been the practice of the House to rely. The Minister of Education had done more than any Minister he knew of to shake confidence in that fairness of public administration; and in so shaking confidence in public administration he had done a far greater evil than merely injuring the interests and hurting the susceptibilities of a particular section of the community who hold certain views on the education question. The general result was that, as everybody must admit, interest in their proceedings was diminishing among the public outside, and, what was far more important, it was diminishing within those walls. What happened now was that the Prime Minister in a perfunctory speech—he did not blame the right hon. Gentleman; the same speech had been made four or five times in the course of the session—introduced a closure by compartment

  1633
  Resolution, and when that melancholy performance was carried out to his satisfaction the House at once ceased to be in any sense a debating assembly. The same results were to be observed whichever Party was in Opposition, and they were therefore justified in saying that these results were due to a system and not to individuals. The debates lost all zest, all interest, all keenness, all novelty, all reality. The House might struggle to believe it was of importance, but it knew, and every Member of it knew, that it was of no importance. It fulfilled no other functions than the functions of those sham assemblies which at various periods of the First and Second Empires in France were supposed to carry on the traditions of free Parliamentary institutions. They all knew that these proposals were unwillingly brought forward by the Government who made themselves absolute tyrants of the situation. Individually they were lovers of liberty, but collectively, by the action they had taken in that House, they had become, against their will, its arbiter and its master. They could not escape the fate which attached to all other tyrants, whether willing or unwilling, and that was seen in the actions and speeches of Ministers themselves. They insensibly fell into the errors which dodged the steps of absolutism. They would not pretend themselves that they took much trouble over the drafting of their Bills. Their Bills were not thought out.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON, Leeds, S.)dissented.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he seemed to have hurt the feelings of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, but the Government had just sent up a measure to that unfortunate Scottish Committee which had so heavy a burden to carry, and he was told there were twenty-one pages of Government Amendments to that Bill. If that had been done on the Opposition side of the House the Prime Minister in courteous terms would have accused them of obstruction, but the Government seemed anxious to obstruct their own Bill, because they had put down a whole volume of Amendments to it including a single clause of 100 lines.
  1634
  Therefore the Attorney-General would feel that there was some slight justification for the comment he had made on the drafting of Government Bills. This was the kind of thing which must happen when every Minister knew that whatever the defects of his measure it would be huddled up in the end unless its defects were exposed in another place. This system had its effect, not only on the Bills of the Government, but on their speeches. They had got into the habit of using a regular formula whenever a criticism was made on their Bills. That formula was—
  "His Majesty's Government have carefully considered the point raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and on the whole they must adhere to their original opinion."
  That could only pass for argument when there was the closure and the guillotine behind it. Gentlemen who would be the last to imagine that they were not ready to come into the open and meet their adversaries face to face got into the habit of sheltering themselves behind thisformula. Why did the Government, who, he was sure, hated all this, do it? Largely because they did not bring their Bills in early enough in the session. They asked the House to do more than the machine could do. They said they were going to consider the whole subject in the course of the winter months. It was, however, no use considering this subject unless they would see where the root of the evil lay. All would desire to see the Bills they desired to pass, passed rapidly. It must not, however, be forgotten that there must be limitations to the output of legislation in an Assembly of 650 gentlemen dealing with subjects of most acute controversy and possessing equal rights of speech, and in most cases equal capacities for speech. They could have a good solid output of legislation each year, but they could not do that by bringing in every year numerous and gigantic measures and expecting them to pass. The Government seemed to have got into a hopeless habit of miscalculation. Everybody would admit that the position of public business at this moment was not satisfactory; but what would it have been but for the abandonment of the Devolution Bill? The Chief Secretary might mourn the premature decease of that Bill, but the Government, as a

  1635
  Government responsible for business, must, though he was sure they believed in the measure, nevertheless have been delighted. He strongly suspected that the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury went over in disguise to the Irish National Convention and used his well-known powers of diplomatic persuasion to induce that important body to relieve himself and his colleagues of the intolerable strain which the legislative activities of the Secretary for Ireland were about to put upon them. The rules of the House certainly required remodelling. The problem the Government had to face was one of extreme difficulty. The difficulties were not wholly the creation of the present Government; they were difficulties incident to the gradual development of our public and political life. He wished he could see in the policy pursued by the Government, either last session or this session, any recognition of the root evils with which they had to deal before the affairs of the House could again be brought into a satisfactory condition.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: said the right hon. Gentleman had brought a sweeping and drastic indictment against the manner in which the Government had conducted the business of the session, but had done it with a degree of good nature and good humour which had taken away much of its sting, but none of its force. He trusted he might be able to show that the right hon. Gentleman had greatly exaggerated the evils which he had discovered, and that, after all, the session promised to be a legislative success, and to have done nothing but credit to the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman first attacked the general system of the reference of Bills to Standing Committees, which was the staple of the new rules of procedure. The view taken on the Ministerial side of the House was that it was necessary and desirable that they should legislate with energy and rapidity. During the last ten or twenty years legislation had fallen into arrears. There were many questions that were ripe for being dealt with, and their difficulty was to know in what order they should take them up. But there were numbers of Members—he did not know
  1636
  that the Leader of the Opposition was conspicuously one of them—who held an entirely different view, and who were fond of telling audiences that there was far too much legislation, and that it would be much better for the country if the House of Commons devoted itself more to academic discussion. They thought that such legislation as was promoted should be of a harmless, and more or less inoperative, character. There was a fundamental difference between the two orders of men in that House, and the energetic section, who demanded that there should be activity in legislation, were so superior in numbers in this Parliament that it was obvious there must be greater attempts made to deal with legislative problems than they had been accustomed to in the past. At the same time, there was the fact to which the right hon. Gentleman had made allusion, that the individual Member was much more active now than he was in the old days. The private Member was much more able to take an intelligent and useful part in their deliberations. He was accustomed to speak more in the country before he came into the House, and when he came there he was able to speak with facility and good effect. The Government had endeavoured in these two sessions to do their best to fulfil what they believed to be the mission entrusted to them by the electors. For that purpose they had instituted a new and experimental system of relegating a much larger share of the work to the Committees sitting upstairs. In the application of this new system it was probable that some blemishes and defects would be found, and he trusted that the Government would not be blind to any faults that might be disclosed, but be quite ready to remedy them. But it was absurd to suppose it would do much good to send these Bills to a Committee upstairs if the whole House was to be present in spirit and if the Committee was not to be trusted to do the work referred to it. This excessive desire that every Member of the House should be able to follow in detail the operations in Committee was an exaggeration founded upon a misconception of the true functions of a Committee. Having referred the question to a Commit-

  1637
  it was not for the House to interfere. They expected the Standing Committees to do their work loyally, with the view to a full discussion and consideration, but also with a view to the ultimate passing of the measures referred. He did not think that that had in all cases been done. Let them take, for instance, the Scottish Small Landholders Bill. There were, he thought, an unusual number of Members on that Committee who had acquired in a great degree the habit of meticulous examination of matters brought before them, and who were exceedingly fluent speakers with extremely ingenious minds, and the result of their applying themselves—no doubt conscientiously from their point of view—was that an amount of time was spent which was altogether out of proportion. Admitting as he did that the Bill was a strong Bill, proposing great alterations in the law which might well give rise to strong feelings, yet the time spent was altogether out of proportion, and if the Bill had not been dealt with somewhat stringently under the new powers given to the Chairman that Committee would have been sitting still. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Government ought not to have referred the great controversial Bills of the session to the Committees upstairs. Had they done so? The great controversial Bill of the session was the Army Bill. Then the Budget Bill, the English Land Bill, the Evicted Tenants Bill had all been kept in the House. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Government had put such a great strain upon Members of the House. Members of the House had not complained much about it. He did not think it had been a great strain, but Members had behaved with great public spirit. The right hon. Gentlemen had also referred to the use of the guillotine. It sounded almost hypocritical and pharisaical, but the Government also detested the whole system of the guillotine as at present applied, and the House would have the same feeling towards the guillotine if the allocation of time were imposed by some impartical authority. It was undoubtedly a system that was open to objection. He did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who preferred to begin the discussion of a Bill in Committee and resort to the
  1638
  guillotine towards the end. It was more effective calmly to review the situation before they began, and, after consultation with different parts of the House as to the amount of time that ought to be allotted, lay down the particular allocation of time that appeared to be fair and just. It seemed to him that when the House was accustomed to this allocation of time, and regarded it without disfavour, it should not prevent the proper discussion of important matters. He constantly saw instances where time that was allotted was wasted in trivial discussions and more important questions were shut out. There was a flagrant instance this session in the ease of the Scottish Small Landholders Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had referred to Clause 3 as perhaps the most important clause in the Bill, and it was included in the section which was to be disposed of on the first day. The right hon. Gentleman said he anticipated that they would not be able to reach it, and he deplored that as a great misfortune. What happened? The new clauses were mostly ruled out of order, they disappeared, and they immediately got on to Clause 1. The Opposition went on discussing comparatively unimportant Amendments to Clause 1, maintaining the discussion with obvious difficulty, until the time came when the axe fell, and Clause 3 was not reached at all. That was an instance, a rather flagrant instance, he thought, of the manner in which opportunities could be used. He repeated what he had said on other occasions in answer to questions, that the Government would consider whether some means could not be adopted for shifting from the Government to some impartial authority the adjustment of these matters, and when that was accomplished he did not believe any substantial injury would be done to the interests of the House. Passing from the Government's sins in that respect, the right hon. Gentleman had complained of the somewhat mechanical mode of dealing with public questions in that House, of the neutralising and sterilising effect upon their debates of this somewhat mechanical mode of dealing with public questions. He did not think there was any matter with

  1639
  regard to which that observation was more true—and he admitted there was some truth in it—than the administration of the Government as exhibited in the Estimates of the year. It was the right hon. Gentleman who introduced this method of devoting so many days definitely to the Estimates. It was a system which had many advantages; it saved the House a great deal of the uncertainty and discomfort that prevailed under the old system; but obviously, when a Minister had his Vote brought on on a certain Thursday, he had only to make the best answers he could and get the debate prolonged until the end of the sitting, and then he was free for twelve months from any animadversion on the part of anybody. That was a bad effect. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman was not altogether free from responsibility for the neutralising effect of the guillotine upon criticism, for he himself had applied this sort of soothing syrup to the whole of the Votes of Supply. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that the Government had not given the three additional days sometimes allowed to Supply. The Government had not those days to spare. He quite admitted, and he repeated the admission, that they had been too sanguine, whether the fault was theirs or not, and they had found themselves in June and July with more before them than they could well accomplish. They could not spare the days unless they were to go into October, as the right hon. Gentleman had prophesied they would. They could not in the circumstances give days for this, days for that, and days for the other. What were the particular cases of which the right hon. Gentleman complained? He said that their policy with regard to Ireland had not been properly discussed. Three days had been given to the Irish Estimates, one of them to the Chief Secretary's salary, which occasioned, of course, a general review of the policy of administration, the Vote being brought on at the dinner hour. That was in accordance with the wishes of Irish Members opposite, and it was rather a novelty that they should take into consideration Irish Members who supported the Leader of the Opposition, because he believed he was right in
  1640
  saying that in former years when the right hon. Gentleman had charge of the business, they were not consulted in these matters. The present Government had consulted them, and had given them a day, and it happened to be the second half they got. He did not think there was really serious ground of complaint in that. He did not know whether he was called upon to make any answer to the attack made by the right hon. Gentleman on the President of the Board of Education's whole policy, but whether he had done wrong or whether he had done right, his right hon. friend was able to take are of himself without his assistance. In addition to the one day given to the Education Vote, there had been besides, three other discussions of a less formal kind.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: What about the Local Government Board?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Local Government Board Vote had been unfortunately sheared and left out. They could not put a quart of Votes into a pint of time, and that was one of the evils under this mechanical system.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: You had the three days.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that the Government had not the three days to spare, and if they had given them there would have been other claims. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Government had asked for more than the machine could do. It was because the machine could not do what they asked of it that they had introduced this experimental system of sending Bills to Committees. He was still sanguine and fully persuaded that, if it was worked steadily and reasonably and any little blemishes and asperities removed which practice showed to exist, that system would be agreat improvement upon the proceedings of the House of Commons, and that they would be able to do much more under it than they had done in the recent past. The right hon. Gentleman had taken a despondent and gloomy view of this Parliament. He had said that nobody cared what they did, and they did not much

  1641
  care themselves. He was afraid the right hon. Gentleman's eyes were elsewhere. It was the other branch of the Legislature, who had every possibility and means that the House of Commons had not of despatching their business with celerity and effectiveness—it was they who were to engross the attention and the gratitude of the country. He did not so read either the tendency of men's minds or the necessities of the time. He believed the House of Commons, with the good sense that had always prevailed in it, and with the good feeling and good spirit which the right hon. Gentleman had himself displayed that day in his criticisms, was quite equal to the task it had undertaken, and that not only in this session, but in any future session—which, he was ready to admit, might be better managed—they would have results which would redound the credit of the House and to the benefit of the country.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid the Leader of the Opposition had had the courage to ask for a return of the occasions since 1887 on which Closure by compartments had been carried. He had got a copy of that return and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman had not seen it, or he could not have made the speech which he had just delivered. The first entry was
  "1887. Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill; four days were occupied on the Report stage, which was concluded on the same day the order as to Closure was made."
  The second entry was—
  "1888. Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) Bill."
  That was a Bill for the establishment of a special Commission to investigate the genuineness of that forged letter by the assistance of which the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition was enabled to pass the Second Reading of a Coercion Bill for Ireland. That Bill occupied two days on the Report stage, but there was no order as to Closure.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Will the hon Member read the number of days on the Committee stage before the Closure, and the number of days in Committee of the Whole House?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill was sixteen days on the Committee stage before the Closure and twenty days altogether in Committee, whilst the Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) Bill was three days in Committee before the Closure and four days altogether in Committee. That was a Bill which affected the whole Parliamentary position, the character of Mr. Parnell, and the whole foundation of the movement of his colleagues and himself, and after three days the right hon. Gentleman established the guillotine. Therefore the Leader of the Opposition had as much responsibility for the guillotine as any member of the House. He was amazed at the right hon. Gentleman's description of the want of public attention which the House now attracted. He was a Parliamentarian, and would regard the failure of the House of Commons to excite the attention of the country as a grave national disaster. When he heard the right hon. Gentleman talking about the House of Commons ceasing to attract public attention his memory went back to the last two sessions of the last Parliament when the right hon. Gentleman was Leader of the House and consequently was more responsible than anyone else for the arrangement of the business and its position in the public mind. The right hon. Gentleman made a number of changes with regard to Question-time, which he had always regarded as the most important part of every day's meeting. Question-time was the occasion when the House was able to fulfil and realise what was perhaps its greatest function as the grand court of inquiry before which very wronged individual and every grievance of the Empire could have a hearing. The right hon. Gentleman made some revolutionary changes in Question-time. What was the most remarkable difference between this Parliament and the Parliament of which the right hon. Gentleman was the Leader? The most remarkable of all the changes made by the right hon. Gentleman was the change in Question-time. What happened in the last two Parliaments? Question-time became curtailed until it was shrivelled down to a shrunken corpse compared with what it was in the early years of

  1643
  his Parliamentary experience. Nobody took the trouble to ask Questions, although at the present time seventy or eighty Questions were being put every day. But that was not the only point. During the last Parliament they came down to the House one night to discuss the question which was the very basis and foundation of the whole commercial condition of this country and the Empire. Could there be a more vital and fundamental question for discussion than that? Was there any tribunal before which that question ought to have been discussed and threshed out except the great Imperial Parliament? On that occasion they found the Opposition occupying their seats but the benches usually occupied by the majority of Ministerialists were empty. They found the Treasury Bench to which the nation had a right to look for guidance empty, and there was anarchy and chaos in the House of Commons because the Government fled from the discussion. When the right hon. Gentleman was describing the decadence of the Imperial Parliament he ought to have made a note of that scene. He was rather surprised that the Leader of the Opposition was able to get up and talk in that strain. The return of the present Parliament had synchronised with an enormous increase of prestige and respect for Parliamentary institutions. The right hon. Gentleman had said that they must go to the very root of this question, which was that the Parliamentary machine was asked to do more than it could deal with. This session they had tried an experiment which had not been tried in any other country in the world. There was no country where the principle of national unity had been preserved at such a sacrifice of blood and treasure as the United States of America, where the greatest civil war that was ever known took place between 1861 and 1865. The national unity of the United States had been baptised in blood to a degree which no other country had ever experienced, and yet that country had forty-three or forty-four subordinate local assemblies. Every man in America who was asked whether the United States could continue to exist if they tried to do all the work of the nation and the states and all the localities in one Chamber would
  1644
  say that such a policy was worthy of nobody except a man who had accidentally escaped from a lunatic asylum. In Germany they did not attempt to do all the work of the subordinate legislatures in one central Parliament. In Germany they had an Imperial Parliament to deal with Imperial affairs and local legislatures for local affairs. It was the same in Austria. But here in this Empire which was, after all, compared with all the countries he had mentioned, immensely larger both in interests and variety of subjects, they were trying what every Member who was either honest or intelligent or both knew to be an impossible task—to do in a single Parliament all the work of subordinate local assemblies as well as all the great work of the Empire. They might try the remedy of the guillotine or Committees—which he thought were most excellent. He had not himself been a member of many Committees, but he had sat upon some, and if the House would allow him to say so he thought the spirit of the Grand Committees compared very favourably with the spirit of the House itself. His own experience was that in Committees there was less of the Party spirit and fewer and briefer speeches, and even the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London on Committees gave them a taste of his quality with an air so subdued that one could hardly realise that he was the same man who addressed them in the House. He would illustrate what he meant by a conversation which he had fifteen or twenty years ago with a gentleman who came to this country from Johannesburg. That place twenty years ago was not so well-known, and the name of Tipperary was rather better known. Even now Tipperary commanded more public interest than Johannesburg. There had been in Tipperary violent differences of opinion between the authorities and the people and some of the Members of the Party to which he had the honour to belong. There was at that time a good deal of heat and even fury with regard to incidents that took place. Members of his own way of thinking were of opinion that the police had exceeded their duties, but the Chief Secretary thought that an Irish policeman

  1645
  could do no wrong. In talking over this question with his friend from Johannesburg, he was shocked and surprised when he heard him say: "Do you realise that there is a country called South Africa? Have you ever heard of a place called Johannesburg? Do you know how that city is involved with difficulties which will demand the attention of this country in a very serious and a grave way before many years are out?" He had to confess that he had never heard the name of Johannesburg mentioned on the floor of the House of Commons. If people referred to Johannesburg at all it was only incidentally. And yet there was Johannesburg, the chief centre of a great industry, the chief city of a country which might one day come into collision with the British Empire, which might be the centre of a great war, and which, therefore, was one of the most momentous factors in the whole future of the British Empire, and it would not be mentioned in the next session of Parliament, whereas a little row in an Irish country town would occupy weeks, If not months, of the Parliamentary session, while all the great Imperial interests in South Africa were forgotten. He told that story as an illustration of the larger truth that this Parliament, which was called Imperial, was not Imperial in the true sense of the word. It had never yet been allowed to rise to the high dignity of an Imperial Parliament, and it never would rise to that position until it devolved on local bodies in all parts of the three kingdoms the duty of attending to local affairs. At present the Imperial Parliament was as unjust to those countries as it was to itself and to its own great possibilities and powers. He did not think anything was more shocking in the House of Commons than to see during a Scottish debate the presence of all the Scottish Members, and to note the absence of nearly all the English Members and the Members of the other nationalities, and then to find when the division came the voice of Scotland was often stifled by the votes of men, nine-tenths of whom had never even heard the Speaker or the Chairman of the Committee give the name and the purpose of the question on which they were going to vote. Irish Home Rule was after all but a small segment of a
  1646
  great circle. If this question could be divested of racial and religious prejudices, if it were not a useful question to restore unity to a disordered and disunited political Party, if the question could no longer be the battledore and shuttlecock of mere partisan politics, and of old and worn out political shibboleths, the people would see the beginning of an efficient, dignified, and Imperial character, and this Parliament would devolve on Ireland and the other countries the management of their own domestic affairs.
  MR. CROOKSsaid that while Imperial interests were of the greatest importance to the British House of Commons, hon. Members were obliged to attend even to parochial affairs at some time or other. He represented for the moment a centre which could not be very well done without in times of emergency. He meant Woolwich Arsenal, and he would claim the indulgence of the House in order to call attention to the condition of things in connection with the discharges of workmen there. The circumstances of the whole place were almost tragic. Here was a town built up almost entirely during the last 200 or 300 years on Government work. The Government had attracted from time to time the very best workmen in the Kingdom to its service. It had always been pointed out that Government work was exceedingly steady and constant. That did not apply to manual labourers, though when a man got into the Government service as an official he never moved. Four or five years ago he visited a Government establishment within the metropolitan area where he found the conditions of employment in regard to women were very unsatisfactory. He called the attention of the superintendent to the matter and was informed that the women employed there were the wives of men who had served the country faithfully and well. Their pay was 11s. or 12s. a week, and they had families dependent on them. He said it was starvation pay, and the permanent official replied: "It is constant." What was constant was starvation. Woolwich had 140,000 inhabitants. The workmen there were a very respectable hard working body. He did not say that with the view to his

  1647
  being returned again to the House, for he did not care whether they returned him or not. At Parliamentary elections there were too many instances of candidates bidding against each other, one stating that if the electors returned him they would get so much more than if they voted for his rival. He had tried to find out the circumstances which had led to all the trouble there, and he would give the figures relating to Woolwich discharges which had been supplied by the Minister for War, in Answers to Questions put by himself. In 1900–1 there were employed in all, in the Arsenal and Dockyard taken altogether, a maximum number of 26,378 men and boys. In 1901–2 the maximum number was nearly as great, 26,321. In March, 1906, the number was reduced to 16,704 (a reduction of 9,674), many of those remaining being on short time. There was a slight further reduction in the following weeks, and then 1,200 men received notice. Therefore, according to the official figures, there had been a total reduction in the numbers employed in Woolwich, effected almost entirely by discharges, of 10,874. It was not to be supposed that the official figures understated the ease. But this was not all. The 1,200 men who received notice in April, and who had since been receiving their discharge at the rate of sixty and upwards per week, were not the total of those whose discharge had been determined upon. On 25th July, the Secretary of State for War stated his intentions. The men in the Royal Carriage Department were to be reduced to 2,500. There were 2,620 left in April. The Royal Gun Factory was to be reduced to 2,000. There were 2,420 left in April. The Royal Laboratory was to be reduced to 3,500. There were 5,727 left in April. The total further reduction from the number employed in April resolved upon by Mr. Haldane was therefore not 1,200 men, but 2,767, made up as follows:—In the Carriage Department, 120; in the Gun Factory, 420; in the Laboratory, 2,227; total, 2,767. These numbers, added to the reduction effected before last April, namely, 9,674, made a total reduction of 12,441 from war strength. There had been two stages in this process. There was the first reduction from the exceptional pressure of the war period to the normal level of employment for
  1648
  times of peace. There was a next further reduction effected under cover of the first, in order to carry out the new policy of the War Office towards the Ordnance Factories, that policy which the Government refused to allow to be discussed in Parliament. It was necessary that it should be ascertained as clearly as possible during what period, and to what extent, the discharges belonged to each of these divisions. In order to discuss this, it was necessary from the nature of the official statistics to deal, not with total employment in the Arsenal and Dockyard, but with the smaller figures relating to the "Ordnance Factories" in Woolwich Arsenal alone. He could not, however, emphasise too strongly that the total number of men already discharged from Woolwich was in round figures 11,000, and the total number contemplated, 12,441. It was impossible to include fairly any discharges made since the end of 1904 under the head of Reduction from War Strength to Peace Strength. The South African War broke out in October, 1899. The year 1898 was therefore unaffected by the war. In that year the average number of men employed in the Ordnance Factories was 15,293. In 1901 the average was 20,501 (the maximum probably exceeding 22,000). In 1904 the average was 15,848. Seeing that (1) since 1901 the Arsenal had increased in area by 313 acres; (2) that since 1901 £1,300,000 had been spent on new buildings, plant, and machinery in the Arsenal and Dockyard; and (3) that the Army and Navy Estimates for the present year, 1907–8, exceeded by 34 per cent. the Estimates for 1898–9; it was clear that the number 15,848 employed in 1904 was relatively very much smaller than the number 15,293 employed in 1898. About half of the total discharges belonged to the earlier series, which could possibly be attributed to reduction from war to peace conditions, and about half to the later series, which were entirely due to the new policy of the War Office in relation to the Arsenal. The exact figures could only be given for the Laboratory, the Carriage Department, and the Gun Factory; which were, however, the chief manufacturing departments of the Arsenal. For these three the figures were:—Average number

  1649
  of employees in 1901, 18,085; average number of employees in 1904, 13,515; reduction (war to peace), 4,570. Average number of employees in 1904, 13,515; future number fixed by the Secretary of State 8,000; reduction due to new policy, 5,515. Much public attention was excited, and Ministers proceeded to reassure Woolwich and the country. On 7th November, 1906, in answer to a Question the Secretary of State for War gave the following figures for discharges during the previous twelve months:—December quarter, 1905, 276; March quarter, 1906, 428; June quarter, 1906, 669; September quarter, 1906, 635; and added:
  "As I informed the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth, it is expected that the further discharges from the factories will not be more than 150 or 200 men."
  A very similar assurance was given by the Secretary of State, solemnly and repeatedly, within a few days to the deputation from the Woolwich Conference. It was impossible not to accept it. And yet they knew now that the Laboratory, Gun Factory, and Carriage Department, which, when the Secretary for War was speaking, employed 11,212 men, were to be reduced to 8,000! The right hon. Gentleman's "expectation," then, to agree with his policy since, should have anticipated a discharge, not of 150 or 200, but of 3,212 men. He wanted to know what this great town of Woolwich was so touched for. Was the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that everything was all right now? He was a little tired—not with the right hon. Gentleman's answers which he gave to the House, but with the permanent officials who supplied the right hon. Gentleman with information. Over and over again from information given to himself at Woolwich he was aware that the right hon. Gentleman knew absolutely nothing of the true facts. They had had twenty years of this kind of rule in the Arsenal, and the result was that the permanent officials' opinion did not coincide with that of the right hon. Gentleman and of himself. The language used by the permanent officials to these poor men who were or had been employed in the Arsenal was, to say the least of it, abominable and would not be used for a moment by any decent employer of
  1650
  labour. He found no fault whatever with the Superintendent of the Arsenal, but with the subordinate officials. These men said that it was no part of his duty to talk politics to workmen inside the Arsenal, and that they could not expect anything else than these discharges if they returned a man like Crooks, who ought to be I arraigned. That kind of thing had always gone on and had happened this very week. He might be told that he ought not to make observations like that on persons who were unable to answer them. Yes; but it was impossible to deal with them when one went down to Woolwich. The Expert Committee pointed out cleanly that the whole machinery in the Arsenal which belonged to the nation could be utilised properly. He insisted that it was a national danger to allow the output of the Arsenal to get low down. He believed that the war material would soon be depleted in the event of a crisis, and that in the South African War the Arsenal was depleted in less than a fortnight. Yet the service was cut down by 12,000 men. Was there a lover of peace in the House who would argue that in any town in Great Britain with a population of 140,000 20,000 men should be thrown out of employment and into the streets without some effort being made to find them work? They were told that men were put out elsewhere. But why should work be given outside when the machinery in the Arsenal was allowed to stand idle? All this was going on, and the permanent officials talked about control and the impossibility of doing this, that, and the other thing. Mr. Donaldson told the Expert Committee last November that it would be a moral impossibility to conduct the affairs of the Arsenal with less than 14,000 men, vet the men were still further reduced, He would like the House to agree to a return of the investments of every man who was in charge in the Government service showing where his money was. He did not care whether a man called himself a Liberal or a Tory on a platform. If he were told where that man's money was invested he could tell what his politics were in the House. That reminded him of an incident which occurred to him when on his travels in Ireland. He happened to be in a train going to Clonmell and the train suddenly pulled up.

  1651
  A man shouted out what had stopped the train, and the answer came that it was because there was a cow on the line. A little further on the train again pulled up with a jerk and the question was asked if there was another cow on the line. "No," was the reply, "it is the same old cow." So it was at Woolwich; there was no possible chance of moving. He would point out what some of the clever men were doing down there. It was said that it was in the interest of the continuity of the work of the Arsenal that these men with their superior knowledge should be retained in their good billets in the service of the State. They had been turning off workmen who were entitled to a bonus of £1 a year—he himself had some doubts about the bonus system—after serving seven years in the Arsenal and were of good character. One man had served seven years and a month, but these cute permanent officials took great care to find out that that man had been ill for six weeks, and therefore had not completed his seven years service, and consequently was not entitled to the bonus. There was not a chance to raise the question in the House, but there were great men whose yearly income would be to the workmen wealth beyond the dreams of avarice, who got a bonus of £50,000. The permanent officials did not "discharge" the last lot of men; they had found a new word for it—they called it "revision." That was to say that men were put off to make room for somebody else. He dared say that these men must feel quite dignified when told that they were not "discharged" but were only under "revision." These men had been kept starving. When they went to the Arsenal they were told that something might turn up from time to time, or that there was nothing for them to do just then. Fancy a man leaving his home in the morning and bidding his wife good-bye, leaving her under the impression that he was going to work, but after hanging about in the Arsenal for a few hours was sent out without a job. He wondered where was the initiative capacity of these captains of industry—the permanent officials at the Arsenal. He remembered two lines of Moore—
  "To place and power your public spirit trends,
  In place and power your public spirit ends."
  1652
  These lines would apply to the public officials in the Arsenal. Some of the men had been kept at starvation wages of 15s. or £1 a week. What was worse, the men to whom accidents most frequently occurred were the men who were badly paid, and who were obliged to claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The reason was that with starvation wages they took with them when they left home the domestic cares of the wife and family. The consequence was that their minds were at home and not concentrated on their work. Another illustration of the cleverness of the permanent officials was that in calculating the earnings of men who were entitled to compensation, instead of calculating them at the rate they should have been paid at, they were calculated on their actual earnings when they worked only half or quarter time. In fact these Government officials only made a convenience of the poor men. He supposed that some day it would be possible for the Secretary of State for War to call these men together, or their representatives, and talk things over round a table and not depend so much on the information given by the permanent officials as now. The recent exposition of this question was dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman, and he thanked him for his intervention, because if it had been left to the old form of permanent officials they would have said they would have nothing to do with it, and that the people who went down would have to get up again. The right hon. Gentleman had, no doubt, had a great deal of trouble with his Territorial Army, but he wanted him to realise the conditions in which these men and their wives and families lived. He wished him to remember that he was responsible, and also that the humblest of His Majesty's subjects should be treated fairly. The right hon. Gentleman would have both public and private opinion behind him. Let them recall the marvellous demonstration of workers which marched nine miles from Woolwich to Trafalgar Square. It was true that in this matter they always obtained sympathy—it was the cheapest thing in the world. It used to be advice that they received, but now it was sympathy.

  1653
  That they got in unlimited quantities. It reminded him that a Colonial governor had one stereotyped reply to a deputation when approached on any subject. He used to say, "Gentlemen, your appeal has touched me very deeply. It shall have my most careful consideration. Good afternoon. Mind the step." There the interview ended, and that was all they got in this country. He wished the Secretary to the Admiralty was in his place, as he wished to point out to him how he had sent working men away who might still have been kept at Woolwich. Surely it must be in the interest of the whole nation that the Government should keep a contented and happy lot of workmen around them. Thousands of men, whom this and previous Governments had attracted to the district, had built their houses in the neighbourhood; he supposed there was no place in the United Kingdom where there were so many owning householders as there were at Woolwich. They had exercised that thrift and self-control which was quoted so frequently in the House; but now, as a consequence of those very qualities which all admired, they had their houses thrown upon their hands. That meant that not only had they lost their employment, but that the money which they had invested in these houses would, at all events, to some extent be lost to them. In the case of a house worth £300 on which say £200 had been paid, to get out when he lost employment the purchaser would have perhaps to lose £40, £50, or £60. When the Government robbed a man of his manhood they drove him to despair and they robbed the nation of a valuable asset. There were hundreds of men who had gone out of the Arsenal who, being specialists, could not turn their hands to anything else, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to say that no further discharges should take place and send a message of peace and hope to those who were in misery at Woolwich.
  MR. ROWLANDSsaid that after the able statement of the case in regard to the Woolwich workers by the hon. Member for Woolwich, it was unnecessary to go into detail with regard
  1654
  to it. He earnestly hoped, however, that the Government would realise the seriousness of the situation which had been created there. He was not going to say that there was anything which could be done by the Government, but he thought that things had now reached a pass where they ought to know whether the present discharges could not be arrested. The nation had there an enormous factory, which they had to keep up at considerable cost to the country, and which they would want in times of danger and difficulty to the community; but, during the last six years these discharges had been going on. They had hoped from time to time that they had reached the stage at which they would cease, but that had not been the case. As his hon. friend had said, the difficulty was that in Woolwich they had a town existing on one employer and one employer only. These men, as he had said, were highly skilled men, but they were being sent out of the country and the nation could not afford to spare them. They thought that in the future there should be an absolute standard of employment given in these Government Departments, and that the reserves should be kept up to a higher point so that efficiency could be secured on an emergency. The investigations of the recent Committee had, he thought, laid the foundations of some practical alteration which would give employment to a large number of men in time of peace. He did not wish to lay blame on anyone in the past, but he wanted a change in the future, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would tell them that they had touched bottom and reached the last of these discharges, and that a new feature would be developed in regard to employment in this Department, so that the stability which had been talked about should be there in regard to the workers as well as in the case of the permanent officials. Another matter of complaint was that men had been deprived of bonuses to which they were entitled, and on the general subject he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to say some words of comfort which would tend to contribute to the happiness in the future of the workers of the Woolwich Arsenal.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,)said the dominant note in the speeches just delivered was the desirability of putting an end to the period of uncertainty through which Woolwich was passing. It was quite true that it was very difficult to arrive on solid ground in their forecast as to the future. He had been disappointed as bitterly as hon. Members had been in regard to getting a clear view of what the establishment at Woolwich should be, but he thought he was in a position, following up the announcements which had already been made, to say that they had got solid ground at last. The process for reduction had been a very painful one, but it had arisen from a very simple cause. They were, he was thankful to say, in a time of peace, and one of the duties of a War Minister at such a period, following a great war, was to get military establishments into order and to conduct Army expenditure with the strict economy which could be justified by those who were trustees for the nation of national finance. The real cause of this reduction had been simple, and it was that there was in time of peace no work for the men who had been discharged. He believed, however, they were now standing on solid ground. The Member for Woolwich, in a speech which was very fair on all other points, had made some reflections on the permanent officials at Woolwich when he spoke of abominable language being used to men who were discharged. That was the first he had heard of the matter. If he had had information of it, it would have been inquired into sharply. He thought, however, his hon. friend must have been to some extent misinformed.
  MR. CROOKS: I will give the right hon. Gentleman the names.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he would be glad to have them. He had visited Woolwich and seen the permanent officials, and had found, as far as he could judge, every desire on their part to co-operate with the Government in carrying out this disagreeable duty as lightly and easily as possible for those who were sufferers by it. The Financial Secretary and he and the permanent officials had
  1656
  been in almost daily consultation with a view to avoiding the very things of which his hon. friend had spoken, and they had done their best to get at the bottom of the situation. The hon. Member had done his duty by his constituents and his conscience, and in so doing had also kept in view public interests. Although the hon. Member had pressed him very hardly he had not done so in any way illegitimately. He did not agree with the view that the establishment was dangerously low. There was no worse state of things than that under which an attempt was made to keep a large number of workmen going without sufficient work. The War Office could not, like private firms, manufacture on a speculative basis in the hope that better times were coming. They were limited to the requirements of the financial year. If their establishment was too large the result was misery to everybody concerned. In that conviction this matter was taken in hand before he came into office, and a policy was adopted which he thought was wise. They had to deal with fluctuations and the fluctuations had been of a remarkable character. The hon. Member for Woolwich had spoken of 1898 as a peace year, but that was not really the case. There were expeditions to the Soudan and Somaliland and a number of small wars, of which he was glad to say there were now none. If he went back to 1884–5, which was a peaceful time, the total number of men employed at Woolwich, including the central stores, was between 6,000 and 7,000. The number fluctuated in subsequent years. In 1894–5 it was 11,910, and eventually it went up to 20,000. But if one went back to what were really times of peace the figure would be found not to be far from that which he was about to mention.
  MR. J. WARD: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned 1885 as a peace year. The only time I ever went to war was in 1885.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he hoped his hon. and gallant friend was well supplied with stores at that time. In the summer of 1905 the late Government appointed a Committee, under the Chairmanship of Sir George Murray, the members of which

  1657
  comprised Sir James McKay, Mr. Llewellyn Smith and others, to ascertain the proper minimum establishment to be maintained in peace on a footing capable of expansion in time of war. That Committee had within the last few weeks ascertained that minimum. Another Committee, Tinder the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle, had been inquiring whether work which had not hitherto been done at Woolwich could not be done there. The Report, which was very cautious and tentative, made certain recommendations. The result was that, whereas the Treasury Committee fixed the minimum establishment at a very low figure, it had been found possible to raise it by about 1,000. In 1901 the numbers employed at Woolwich Arsenal reached their highest point, 20,501. In 1905 they stood at 15,150, a reduction of 5,351. That the numbers had not been still more rapidly reduced was due to the fact that requirements of an extraordinary nature had to be met—the building up of reserves and the re-armament of the Field Artillery. By the end of 1905 this work was coming to an end, and further large discharges became inevitable. The very liberal proportion of orders allotted to the ordnance factories could have been increased only at the risk of losing outside sources of supply. And we must have some sources of supply in the great industrial centres. If we had not that source we should in time of war be unable to obtain that assistance. No Government establishment could stand the strain of a great war without it Therefore, the Government had endeavoured as far as possible to keep these matters distinct and under different heads. But he was afraid, notwithstanding what they desired to do, that they had kept Sheffield and Newcastle on a very lean scale of employment just lately. The principal recommendation of the Committee was that they fixed the minimum establishment for Woolwich from which they might expand, but they must not reduce the number employed below that minimum. The minimum was fixed on the footing that they would have employment enough to keep the men going, and also be able to provide a certain number of orders for Sheffield and Newcastle and other places. The essence of it all was that the employment
  1658
  of the minimum at Woolwich, under the principle recommended by the Committee, was that they were sure to keep the minimum of workmen employed. The Committee took a very drastic; view of what the minimum ought to be. The recommendation of this Committee did not touch the Central Department and the Building Department of Woolwich, which employed over 3,000 men; it dealt simply with the work of the factories. The recommendation of the Murray Committee was that the work in the factory should provide employment only for a minimum of 7,400 men. As he had said, largely because of the recommendations of the other Committee, presided over by the hon. Member for Barnard Castle, they had been able to increase that 7,400 to 8,400, and they should be in a position to keep the minimum at that always allowing a 5 per cent. margin for any necessary fluctuations during the year, and there need be no reduction except by ordinary wastages. The number would not be allowed to pass the limit in either direction under normal circumstances. Beginning with the minimum of 8,400, they had next to consider the present state of things. In the factories, on 12th August, there were employed 8,996 men, which brought them to 596 over the minimum. There were still some discharges going on, and they would go on until September, and these would bring the number down by 300. After that they did not intend to go on with discharges, but would leave the further reduction till the minimum was reached by ordinary wastage. There were only 300 more discharges in view, and these would be closed in September. They were most anxious not to go on with them until the winter period, when employment would be difficult to get by those who were discharged. That being so, the state of things was this, that the figures for the factories were what he had given. Enfield, where rifles were made, and Waltham, where cordite was made, were, of course, entirely outside, and their reductions were very small indeed. The minimum recommended for Enfield was 2,000, and the actual strength a few weeks ago was 2,048, so that wastage would put this right very quickly without discharges. The Waltham establishment was to be

  1659
  630, and the actual strength a few weeks ago was 735, so that again wastage without discharges would put the matter right. It might be that they would not have orders enough to find work for the minimum, and in that case they must resort to other sources. They hoped, with the minimum of 8,400, to give stability to the flow of employment in Woolwich in the future. He was quite aware, in saying what he had said, that this meant a very great reduction from the war establishment. He was quite aware of the hardship to Woolwich; he was quite aware of the hardship to a town where houses were unoccupied, and where there was less employment goingon. They were bringing things down really to the same figures as in 1893–4, when the number was 11,800. The total would now stand, including the 3,000 employed in the Central and Building Departments, at 11,500. But there would be this counterbalancing circumstance, as far as he could forecast, on the advice of skilled advisers: the evils of the past would be at an end. The employment would he continuous, and there would not be those violent ups and downs that there had been, nor would there be the discharges, while they hoped to be able to replace wastage in the ordinary course. He thought it was infinitely better for Woolwich that she should have a stable and certain element in the shape of a Government workshop with a fixed establishment and steady employment for its men even on a small scale, than that she should have the large and fluctuating one which had been in existence in the past. He hoped he had made clear the reason of the unhappy circumstances of the few years that had gone by. The reason of the reduction and of the present condition of things was that they had been in the transition period between war and peace. It was inevitable. But now they had got a steady foundation, and with peace Estimates it was possible to fix an establishment which would be free from these evils which they could not avoid unless they tried to put things on a permanent and definite basis, exchanging the uncertainty of the past for the certainty of the future. Some reference had been made by his hon. friend to revision. That was in the Ordnance Department. There were a few cases of revision, he
  1660
  thought eighteen, he doubted whether so many. They wished to be model and frugal employers. They wished to make the condition of their employ es as good as they could. The scale of wages they paid seemed less than the scale of wages paid by private employers, and he dared say that in many respects it was not so great as private employers adopted in times of high prosperity; but there were certain advantages accruing to Government workmen in the shape of allowances and other things. But this was a controversial topic, and he did not feel called upon to offer an opinion whether the Government workman was as well off as the employee of a private firm. At any rate, what they wished to do was to give the men stability of position, and reach a state of things in which the violent fluctuations of the past would not exist in the future. Whether they had succeeded in that he did not know. He could only tell the House that they had done their very utmost to achieve the object they had in view, and it was not until a few weeks ago that the efforts which had been made reached a stage which enabled him to make the present statement.
  MR. CURRAN,in calling attention to the state of affairs in Belfast, said he was not responsible for having to raise the question at this juncture. They had desired to raise it on the adjournment of the House some days ago, but they were unable to do so owing to the rules of procedure. Though he had certain feelings with regard to those rules, as far as he was personally concerned he desired to conform to them until such time as the majority of Members were converted to the wisdom of altering the rules of procedure so that business could be carried on in a more expeditious manner. In raising the question at this juncture, he did not want to reopen wounds in Belfast which were now healing and which he hoped would be absolutely healed before many days were over. The question which they desired to bring before the House was one of principle regarding the future policy of the Government with reference to labour disputes which might arise in any part of the United Kingdom. He and those acting with him submitted that the

  1661
  presence of the military in Belfast had been largely responsible for the unfortunate occurrences in which people had met with their death, and the violent scenes witnessed on Wednesday and within the last three or four weeks. If any argument were needed to prove that the presence of the troops had an irritating influence on the community, the fact that during the two days they had been confined to barracks peace had prevailed in Belfast supplied that argument. He was led to understand that the chief magistrate of the city, according to the King's Regulations, had the privilege of calling out the troops without consulting anyone, even his colleagues in the corporation. If that were correct, he submitted on behalf of his colleagues, that it was an extraordinary power to vest in any one individual. It was a power which had not only brought about great difficulties in Belfast, but might tend to bring about extraordinary difficulties in other countries of industry both on this side of the Channel and on the other. He desired to cast no reflection upon the Lord Mayor of Belfast. He wanted to discuss this matter on lines of principle rather than on personalities. But he repeated that it was a most dangerous thing to give to any one person, even the highest in any city of the country, power to call upon the military forces without any due investigation being made. He submitted that before the troops were allowed to parade the streets of any industrial centre where a dispute was in progress, stringent inquiries should be made by the War Department to find out whether there was any justification for calling out troops, as was done in Belfast. If such inquiries had been made in this case the military would never have been needed in Belfast at all. As far as he had been able to gather, nothing occurred in Belfast prior to the troops going except those occasional collisions between unionists and non-unionists which occurred in almost any dispute in every part of the country, and if that was all that occurred prior to the calling in of the military, then, in his judgment, the person who originally called in the military had a tremendous responsibility cast upon him, and had something to answer for. Then the question of the cost arose. With all due deference to
  1662
  the Ministers who had been most courteous in their replies to questions addressed to them on this question, he submitted that the constabulary and the military had been used entirely in the interests of the shipping and the railway companies, and they had been utilised—and he made this statement on the best authority from Belfast—not only to guard the property of the shipping and railway companies, but distinctly for the purpose of going round and showing the non-union trollymen the place where they had to deliver their stuff, and to guard them while the stuff was being delivered. If the military and the constabulary had been used for these purposes, if they had been, used for guarding the interests of the railway and shipping companies and for preventing the possibility of carrying out the Trade Disputes Act passed last year, in his judgment those companies ought to be called upon to bear the cost. He was informed that during the agitation in Ireland many years ago there were certain landlords who called for military protection and escorts, and after the agitation had subsided those landlords had to pay the cost. When a precedent of that kind had been laid down in Ireland he hoped the Government would see that the railway and shipping companies paid their due share of the cost of the military and constabulary during the last six weeks in Belfast. There was one point which touched them very severely in these matters. This was not the first time that the military had been called out in labour disputes. He knew of no matter so serious having occurred in a labour dispute as that which occurred last Monday in Belfast. On that occasion three people met their death—three innocent people who had absolutely nothing to do with the dispute in any sense of the term. It was unfortunate that these things always seemed to occur when a Liberal Government was power. They had often been reminded of the unfortunate occurrences at Featherstone and Southampton which occurred during the reign of Liberal Governments. He agreed that the Ministry were not responsible, but it was somewhat remarkable that these things did occur when a Liberal Government was in office. What they felt most was the fact that when the military were called out,

  1663
  and when extra forces of police were requisitioned, they were never called out to protect the organised workmen who were endeavouring to maintain a living wage. They were always called out to protect property. On the Labour Benches they believed that there were human rights as well as the rights of property. Ever since he had been a Member of the House he had observed that the rights of property had always been put first and the rights of humanity second. They desired to reverse that order of things. Within the organised labour movement both in this country and in Ireland they had the cream of the working-classes and some of the most thrifty, steady, and capable men in the United Kingdom belonged to trade unions. Many large employers of labour were ready to admit that. Trade unionists were taxpayers; they contributed largely towards the taxes of the country. As a matter of fact, they contributed more to the taxes than the men who were against them in industrial disputes. These men lived a fairly comfortable life when they were in employment, but when they were endeavouring to maintain a living wage all the forces he had mentioned were used against them, in the interests of the employers. They were not satisfied that this state of affairs should go on, and their desire in raising the question in regard to Belfast was that in future the head of the War Department and the head of the Government either in England or in Ireland should take due care that nothing was done to endanger life until every other method had been exhausted. They could not undo what had been done in Belfast, but he hoped what had occurred would be a lesson to the Ministers of the Crown, not to permit the menacing position taken up by the troops in Belfast to occur in industrial disputes in the future. We had in this country the reputation for being able to conduct industrial disputes in a quiet and peaceful way. There were foreign countries which were noted for violence in these matters. Those labour representatives who were at the head of the trade union movement were strongly desirous of conducting their operations in a peaceful and legitimate way, and he believed in the case of Belfast they could have accomplished
  1664
  that purpose had it not been for the presence of the armed forces of the Crown. The introduction of the military had prevented that possibility. With regard to the obstinate position taken up by the railway and shipping companies, it seemed unfortunate that, even in this House, those who represented the working class movement and voiced the opinions of their fellow-workmen were unable to do anything to bring pressure to bear on the large capitalistic forces involved in this dispute. There was no class of capitalist in the country that had received more privileges from Parliament than the railway companies. Upon this question he wished to be perfectly candid and to declare that as far as one Member's voice was concerned it would be raised in the future to prevent the possibility of such privileges being conferred upon certain railway companies. Those railway companies had taken up the obstinate position of ignoring even the highest citizen in Belfast, because when appeals were made by the Lord Mayor the companies absolutely refused all negotiations. When a body responsible for carrying on the commerce of the country took up that attitude and refused to submit the points in dispute to arbitration, when they refused to accept the assistance of the Board of Trade or any other tribunal, they stood condemned in the eyes of all sensible and intelligent people. That was what had happened in this unfortunate, dispute. He had not doubt that the responsible Ministers of the Crown were just as anxious as he and his friends were for a speedy ending to this unfortunate affair, but in the meantime the Labour Party raised the question in order to impress upon the Government the necessity of exhausting every other means before the military were allowed to enter any town or city where an industrial dispute was taking place.
  MR. SLOANsaid the hon. Member for Jarrow had confined himself to the inadvisability of the policy of calling out the military in any industrial dispute before every other means had been exhausted. He did not think he would be doing his duty to his constituency if he failed on this occasion to get up

  1665
  in his place and give more details than the hon. Member had furnished the House with. Ever since he had had the honour of representing South Belfast he had shown no sympathy whatever with the tyranny of capitalists or of labour organisations, because there were other interests in Belfast. In the interests of fair play and justice he thought the line of demarcation must be drawn. It would be remembered that the Royal Irish Constabulary revolted, and the disaffection which followed left the city entirely in the hands not of the strikers but of the won't-workers, who took advantage of the industrial dispute to bring disgrace and suspicion upon those engaged in it. It had been admitted both on the Government and on the Labour Benches, and there was no question about it, that a great deal of the violence used under the guise of peaceful persuasion or picketing was not endorsed by the responsible labour leaders, but was done by men who were irresponsible to them and over whom they had no control. When the Royal Irish Constabulary decided that the time of this strike was opportune to set their grievances before the Government, he confessed that in the interests of good government and considering his responsibility as a Member of the House he thought it was his duty to condemn their action as inopportune, although he had always previously been in sympathy with them. The time they took, in the conditions under which they were placed, to exercise their right was to no right-thinking man a proper time and could not in the interests of peace be condoned. If they had a grievance, instead of joining the forces of disorder they should have stuck to their guns and enabled the Irish Executive to carry out their duties. When the crisis was over then they might have put forward their claims in a reasonable and sensible manner. The references to the strike in the English newspapers had always been accompanied by an explanation that the Belfast people were noted for disorder, riots, and turmoil. In the city of Belfast there was always the danger of religious feeling being introduced, no matter how the dispute arose. Unfortunately, the people there were sharply and keenly divided upon religious
  1666
  questions. They had what were called Nationalists and Unionists. The former were confined to one part of the city, and the other parts of the city were supposed to be composed of Unionists and loyalists. All the riot and disturbance and the firing by the military had been confined to one particular division, and no part of the other three divisions had been affected. Only those who lived in the city of Belfast could understand that the disorder was occasioned not by the men who had a legitimate claim to carry on the picketing, but by men who were not really concerned in the dispute at all. The calling out of the military was a deplorable thing, but there were sections who looked on the calling out of the military with favour, just as there were those who looked on it with disfavour. If the town had not sufficient protection from the police then the troops had to be called out. He believed there was a possibility of the present state of affairs coming to an end, and it would be regrettable if that debate should cause anything in the way of suspicion or disorder. He could not sit down without saying that Belfast had suffered from invasion by the hon. Member for Colne Valley. He was glad to know that, he was an irresponsible Member, and that even the hon. Members on the Labour Benches would not attempt to justify his speech. He thought that it was deplorable that the railway companies would not submit the dispute to arbitration. His own opinion was that the only way to settle strikes such as this was by arbitration. He held that where possible arbitration should always take place. The Chief Secretary had been denounced for his inaction. Then when the right hon. Gentleman gave instructions to the civil authorities his action was supposed to be too late He knew from personal and private communication with the right hon. Gentleman that no Minister of the Crown could have been more earnest and anxious to put himself to trouble and pains to try to solve this problem than the Chief Secretary. He did not think they could charge the Government with responsibility for the scenes which had occurred in Belfast. Labour leaders came over last week for the purpose of asking him to

  1667
  impress on the Government that the military should be withdrawn; he pointed out that the Government had no power, and they did not seem to be satisfied with that. From replies to Questions put in the House by the hon. Member for Jarrow it was quite evident that the Government were powerless to refuse to the civil authority what they considered necessary for the preservation of peace in the city. He thought, under the circumstances, that the riots took place by reason of the military on the streets; but if any Member of the House had been in his position and had received the shoals of letters which he received by every post calling for necessary protection, he would feel that there was really some justification for the calling out of the military at the time they were called out. He thought that the real strikers deplored the state of affairs as much as anybody. He was sure they were willing that their "war" should be carried on in a proper and decent fashion. Whoever was responsible, there was no doubt that the violent speeches which had been made, and the action which had been taken in destroying property and endangering life, did more harm to the legitimate strikers than anything imaginable. He knew no place in England where a similar emergency could arise. In this country trade disputes were carried on with the greatest ability and amiability, and sometimes even harmony. It was to be regretted that the dispute in Belfast should have culminated in the way it did. He had been in constant communication with the Labour Members since the dispute began, and he wished to state that there was not one of them who, in his judgment, did not repudiate association with such tactics as had been used in certain parts of the city. They had endeavoured, as far as they could, to co-operate and do good work with the view to a peaceful and honourable settlement. He thought it was due to them that that should be stated. He trusted that their efforts, and the efforts of those in positions of authority, would soon result in bringing to an end this deplorable dispute.
  MR. J. MACVEAGHsaid he was anxious that no words should fall from him which would continue the
  1668
  excitement in Belfast or retard the settlement which they all desired. He would like to lay before the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Secretary of State for War a few points which would tend to fix the responsibility for the unfortunate circumstances which had arisen. He gathered from the Army Regulations that the military could be called out on the demand of a Mayor a chief constable, a divisional commissioner, a resident magistrate, or of any officer of the Royal Irish Constabulary. He agreed with his hon. friend that it was a terrible responsibility and power to place in any one man to call out the military. What he would like to know from the Secretary of State for War or the Chief Secretary was whether anybody in authority in Belfast besides Lord Shaftesbury was consulted before the military were called out in the first instance. He was not now referring to the calling out of the military on the night of the riot. He went back to the beginning of the strike when the military were brought out. Was the corporation consulted? Were the local magistrates consulted? What steps were taken to ascertain whether there was any real necessity for placing the military in the streets of Belfast? He need scarcely remind the House that the Lord Mayor of a big city was generally an employer of labour himself. In this case, happily, he was not. The present Lord Mayor of Belfast had no personal interest as an employer of labour, but as a rule the Lord Mayor would be an employer of labour and would have a personal interest in any strike of this kind that might arise. It was a serious matter that a man who had a personal interest in a strike should have the power to call out the military in his own interest. In the "Manual of Military Law" he found the following statement—
  "Soldiers may be summoned in ease the civil authority is in danger of being overpowered, but they should not be called into action till the necessity arises for protecting life and property by military force."
  He presumed the Secretary of State for War accepted the responsibility for that. Why were the military called out in Belfast before any necessity had

  1669
  arisen? The police had not been overpowered by the mob. The military were called out before the police were overpowered or seriously attacked. That was an indisputable fact. It could not be said that the police strike was the reason for calling them out, because they were called out before the police strike took place. He did not propose to elaborate the point raised by the hon. Member for Jarrow that when the military were brought out they were used in the interests of the employers. It certainly was the general impression in the city of Belfast that the military were placed in the streets in the interest of the employers, and that that indeed was the object for which they were brought out. Another passage in the "Manual" said—
  "Soldiers, when acting in aid of the civil power, in no respect differ, in the view of the law, from armed citizens. Their organisation prevents their being conveniently employed in using moderate force for the purpose of dispersing or apprehending rioters without doing them any injury; and as a general rule any action on their part involves the risk of inflicting death, or, at all events, grievous bodily harm. Soldiers, therefore, should never be required to act except in eases where the riot cannot reasonably be expected to be quelled without resorting to such means of repression. These cases are practically confined to riots in which violent crimes, such as murder, house breaking, or arson, are being committed, and to insurrections in which an intention is clearly shown to attempt by force of arms the overthrow of the Government, or the execution of some general political purpose."
  Nobody could seriously contend that such a state of affairs had arisen in Belfast at the beginning of the strike when the military were first placed on the streets. He felt certain that the tragic events which happened in Belfast were due to the presence of military in the streets. The very fact of placing camps of armed men in the streets was enough to attract the mob everywhere and to increase the excitement. It was the most effective means possible of leading to disturbance, and that was proved by the fact that immediately the military were withdrawn peace was established and had been maintained since. In regard to the firing by the military, he presumed that the only point that arose was whether it was necessary, and whether the officers exercised caution to see that no injury that
  1670
  could be avoided was committed. An hour was generally allowed to elapse between the reading of the Riot Act before the military were called upon to fire. He knew that it had been held by the Courts that that was not absolutely essential, but that they must proceed to repel force by force. Of course everybody knew that a magistrate was there; but the first thing the mob did was to extinguish the lights, and therefore they could not see him read the Riot Act. Moreover, he thought that if the military were going to fire at all they should have begun by firing blank cartridge. He did not think it was necessary for the honour of the Army that then; should be somebody killed. He hoped, therefore, that if it was necessary that these powers should be conferred on the civil magistrates to call out troops, and if the regulations enabled the military to fire bullets at the beginning of a riot, the Army Regulations would be reconsidered and an amendment made in them without any unnecessary delay. He trusted that the inquiry which was proposed to be hell would cover these points, and that the Secretary for War would consider whether it was possible to amend the Army Regulations so as to prevent a recurrence to such a tragic event.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he regretted that the matter of the strike and the disturbances in Belfast should have been brought before the House just at the moment when negotiations were in progress which everybody hoped would have the effect of ending the unhappy state of affairs which existed in that city. Although he did not agree with all that had been said by hon. Members below the gangway, he did not complain of the tone of their speeches. He and his colleagues, however, felt very strongly that at that juncture it would have been much better, as negotiations for a settlement of the strike were going on, that nothing should have been said about the unhappy state of affairs in Belfast, but the representatives from the North of Ireland thought it necessary, as the subject had been called attention to, to answer the remarks that had been made below the gangway. It seemed to him that the whole condition of affairs in Belfast might be looked at from two

  1671
  points: First, the merits of the respective cases of the masters and the men; it would be highly improper for him to deal with that subject at the present time; and secondly, the employment of the military to aid the civil authorities generally and in suppression of the riots during which three unfortunate persons were killed. Every candid person who had read the reports from day to day of the occurrences in Belfast would agree that the military were called out not one hour too soon. The state of affairs which existed in that city had gone far beyond what was supposed to exist during the continuance of an ordinary strike. Acts of violence became so numerous that the employment was necessary of large numbers of police. The fact that there was a strike among the police themselves alone justified the authorities in calling for the assistance of the military. He did not want to compare either favourably or unfavourably the city of Belfast with other cities in the matter of strikes, but it was admitted that a large number of acts had taken place which even hon. Members below the gangway did not justify. It was almost unthinkable what would happen in a city like Belfast if any large section of the police had actually carried out the threat which, it appeared at one time, they intended to carry out. The authorities in Belfast and in Dublin would have acted with very great want of foresight and with criminal negligence if they had not provided against anything in the nature of a strike amongst the police. Even if there had been no dissatisfaction among the police the lawless acts that were committed made it necessary to call in the military. So many of those acts were of such a lawless nature that the police were totally unable to cope with them. It was impossible for the police to be everywhere, and the rioters—not all strikers, but also those who sympathised with them—were not concentrated in one locality, but spread over the city. He would give a few instances of those acts of violence and lawlessness committed under the pretext of peaceful picketing.
  "July 9th.—Van belonging to J. & A. Beck & Sons overturned. Constable who arrested one of mob beaten and kicked. Two vans belonging to Henry Martier & Co., laden with goods, stopped. Goods scattered on street,
  1672
  one van run into river, the other burned. Police baton charge in connection with incident.
  July 22nd.—Van with bags of flour held up in St. George's Street, bags thrown off van, several stolen.
  25th July.—Belford Vitriol Works van, at Stewart Street, oiled with paraffin and destroyed by fire. Van with two cases machinery and castings belonging to James Mackie & Sons stopped in High Street. Cases broken, contents scattered and destroyed; eases fired. Lorry with bales of goods belonging to John Fulton & Co. attacked. Bales flung on street. Lorry thrown into river.
  "30th July.—Two lorries laden with paper for David Allen & Co., Ltd., stopped and overturned in St. George's Street. Contents of one van scattered on street.
  "1st August.—Attack on Castalia vans at York Dock. Police stoned. Vans obliged to go away empty. Customer's van leaving Hughes. Dickson & Co.'s mill stopped at Alexander Street, W. Bags of bran ripped with knives and destroyed in presence of police.
  "2nd August.—Attack on two coal-laden vans (John Kelly's) in Waring Street. Coal flung on roadway.
  "3rd August.—Pratt & Montgomery's van, laden with sugar from Rotterdam Quay shed, attacked. Horses taken from van. Sugar flung on street. Bags soaked with paraffin and set on fire. Van flung into river.
  "6th August.—Lorries belonging to Alexander Reynolds stopped in Corporation Street. Strikers armed with sticks. Drivers compelled to take horses from vans and leave latter on street.
  "8th August.—Attempt to set Hughes, Dickson & Co.'s mill, Diver Street, on fire. Door oiled with paraffin and fired. Quantity of hay steeped in paraffin and placed against door ablaze."
  He had read enough to show that it was perfectly clear the police were not in sufficient numbers to prevent these acts of violence which no Government or authority could tolerate for one moment, and that alone rendered it necessary for the civil authorities to call in the assistance of the military. With regard to the riot in which three lives were lost a few nights ago, he would like to point out that the district in which that happened was a district outside the chief area of the strike altogether. Everyone in Belfast knew that it had little or nothing to do with the strike. It took place in a part of the town which was inhabited almost entirely by Nationalists. He did not wish to say anything which, being reported in Belfast tomorrow, might extend the ill-feeling which already existed, but he felt bound to emphasize the fact, as the matter had

  1673
  been mentioned, that that attack took place in the Nationalist quarter of the town and was really one by the Nationalist party on the forces of law and order. It seemed to him that the fact that such a large number of persons acted as they did on that night was a justification for bringing out the military. It must be borne in mind that on this particular occasion the military were not brought on the scene until the riot had been in progress for a considerable time, which disposed of the statement made by the hon. Member below the gangway that the presence of the military was mainly the cause of the riots The riot started with a small row and the police barracks was besieged and disturbances resulted. It looked as if the mob were going to capture the barracks, as the police either outside the barracks or inside them were utterly unable to make any impression on the large body of rioters. There was, therefore, nothing whatever for the authorities to do except to call upon the military to disperse the rioters. As to the question whether the military should first of all have fired blank cartridge, that was a moot point and one which always cropped up in. cases of disturbances of this kind, but personally he thought the course taken by those in command of the military was the right and proper one. Here they had a riotous assembly which was doing damage of a serious nature, which was constantly becoming more uncontrollable, which had been warned by the police and by the magistrates; the people knew the fate in store for them if they did not disperse, and it had always seemed to him that in the interests of the people themselves the military should fire at them at once rather than fire over their heads or fire blank cartridge. This, however, was a matter of opinion upon which people held different views. He was glad of this opportunity of publicly stating what was the almost universal opinion, namely, that the conduct of the military throughout the disturbances was beyond all praise. From the accounts in the newspapers and from those which he had received in private letters, he had been greatly struck by the excellent bearing of the men who had carried out a task which must have been most distasteful to them
  1674
  in a most praiseworthy manner. The military were not natives of Ireland and they were called upon to perform this most distasteful task, and they behaved in the most splendid manner throughout these disturbances. He would conclude by saying that nothing that had been said that evening would he hoped, have any influence upon the disturbances, and he recognised that the Labour Party were as desirous as they in that part of the House were that these disturbances should cease The appeal to the military and the use of them had been carried out with the greatest discrimination and without any intention of favouring one party or the other to the strike.
  MR. J. WARDsaid he wished to present to the House a side of the controversy which had not been dealt with at all. First of all, they, as trade unionists, were extremely gratified to know that the lawless acts complained of as committed during this dispute were not attributed to the strikers or to the organisation of the men. He thought it would be a great mistake that every other resource of authority should not be employed before the military were brought in, but the point which he wished to refer to particularly was the use of modern arms in dealing with the civil population. It seemed to him about the cruellest thing that could be done. He could understand in the old days the use of the old musket, because by that weapon they really hit the rioter; but the use of modern arms was indefensible. It had been suggested that the military should fire over the heads of the people, but that might have resulted in disaster miles away, whether people were in or out of doors. A nine-inch wall was no protection against a modern rifle, and they did not want indiscriminate slaughter when engaged in suppressing civil disturbances. What they wanted to do was to intimidate those who were breaking the law. What had happened in this case, as in 1893, was that innocent people were the victims of the action of the military. If the military were to be called in, some precautions should be taken that the injury inflicted should be on those who were taking part in the riots and

  1675
  not upon those who were not. He suggested that, when the military were employed in future for the purpose of suppressing civil disturbances, they should be armed with weapons intended for the very purpose of suppressing such disorder, and not with a weapon intended to cut down a person miles before one saw him. He would suggest to the Secretary of State for War that some scheme should be devised so that the military might be armed with a weapon which was sufficient to overawe those who were committing the offence, but which would not injure those who were committing no offence at all.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.)said he was sure that everybody who had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Jarrow would recognise that he had introduced this question with most admirable temper and in a most reasonable speech. He was new to work of this kind, but it had been a pleasure to him in the last few days to be in constant communication with Labour leaders in that House and to find them so helpful and so sensible. There was no difficulty in such circumstances in really profiting by negotiations. Some reference had been made to the strike, and he thought he was in a position to say, although he spoke with some caution, that all points of difference between the men and the employers had already been settled. Dealing with the general question, he said the position of chief magistrate of a great city like Belfast was one which no one would envy. He was bound by law, associating himself it might be with his brother magistrates, to take the steps which appeared to him to be absolutely necessary in order to secure the lives, limbs, and property of the citizens. If he did not act, he was indictable; and if he acted improperly, if he called out the military too soon, he might find himself in the dock charged with manslaughter. Therefore, they must feel that it was a very difficult position for any man or body of men to be placed in. But these difficult positions must occur, and they had to rely in moments of great emergency upon individual men. They
  1676
  could not put those great duties into commission. They could not discharge them by popular assembly. They had to place confidence in men in these positions, knowing that if they went wrong they would be subject to very severe criticism, and, it might be, to very painful legal consequences. He did not want to go into the question as to the necessity for calling out the soldiers—for requisitioning them to be there in the first instance as a precautionary measure. The evidence before the chief magistrate was certainly of a very serious character. The streets had been given over to scenes of disorder, great injury was happening to all sorts of persons in no way connected with the strike, and it was necessary to see what steps could be taken to secure the ordinary decencies of life. Then there was the trouble about the police. He did not wish to exaggerate that, but it was for the time being a very considerable trouble, and no one had any means of estimating how many men might possibly have been so misguided as to join the threatened strike. Therefore, there was a period when Belfast might have been without even police protection, and it would have been most rash and improper had not the civil authorities by way of precaution required the presence of the soldiers. Happily the trouble with the police did not prove to be quite so serious as was expected, but nevertheless it was thought necessary as a disciplinary and precautionary measure to remove a very considerable number to other parts of Ireland, and their places were taken by policemen not acquainted with the town. Therefore, there was a great responsibility cast upon the civil authorities, and he had no reason to believe that they did anything beyond what the necessities of the case demanded. It was true that the presence of the military might have had an irritating effect upon the mob. But the absence of the soldiers might have had another kind of effect which might have led to very terrible disaster. They all deplored the loss of life that had occurred. They all felt distressed to think of the young woman who, in the prime of her days, lost her life while searching for her younger brother, a little boy who, as boys would, had gone out and lost himself in the crowd. But let them think for a moment of what might

  1677
  have happened had the mob obtained the mastery even for half an hour. It would have had to be checked and repressed at whatever cost. How terrible might have been the loss of life had any such measure of repression become necessary. He pleaded, with perfect confidence—for the House had shown a disposition to recognise and understand the difficulties of the situation—that those persons responsible in Belfast for the management of these affairs should receive full and generous treatment at their hands. For his own part, he thought that on the whole they deserved nothing but congratulation on the success of their efforts. It had been said that the military were called out at the bidding of the employers in order to take part in the strike that was going on. He did not believe there was a word of truth in the statement. Although he was in no sense responsible for what was done, he had been kept very well informed of the proceedings from first to last, and he had never been able to discover any trace whatever of any yielding to pressure or anything but the most anxious desire to hold a perfectly even hand between all parties, subject always to the fulfilment of the paramount duty to maintain order in the streets. Therefore, so far as he was concerned, he could not give the faintest encouragement to the notion that any inquiry would result in the discovery that anything had been done in obedience to a particular kind of pressure. Property was, of course, not so important as life. The civil authorities must consider humanity and the maintenance of life before that of property. But in a great city like Belfast the loss in the first instance accrued to property, and it was the duty of the civil authorities to protect property, although in so protecting it they would never lose sight of the fact that the protection of life was the first and greater duty. Having requisitioned the military as a precautionary measure, the question whether or not the soldiers should be called upon to repress the mob was a very nice and a very difficult question. He did not think that in this particular case there could be any doubt whatever that the military, who were not upon the spot to begin with, were sent for to subdue a desperate, determined, and almost
  1678
  successful attack upon the police barracks. They acted with perfect self-command, with full deliberation, and upon advice; and he did not think that anything was ever likely to be found out to show that they did anything else than what was necessary. With regard to the kind of weapons to be employed, he could not but feel that there was a great deal in what had been said. In the Featherstone case an inquiry was necessary because there was great doubt in the public mind as to what the relations between the civil and the military authorities were. The report of Lord Bowen in that case placed the matter as clearly as it ever could be stated in the English language. This very question of the sort of shot to be employed and whether in the first instance blank cartridge was to be used was considered. There seemed to be a good deal of force in what had been said, and some good might come out of the consideration of the question, always provided that they in no way interfered with the responsibility of the soldiers to take the measure which they thought was certain to accomplish the immediate result they had in view. He would like to add a word about the police. They had been subjected to a great deal of criticism and had had to be dealt with in a manner necessarily prompt and decided. They had now returned fully to their allegiance, and he would like to say to that great body, if he might, that when these troubles were over they would find the Irish Government perfectly disposed to consider their grievances. Some grievances, he admitted, they had in the matter of pay, and the consideration of these grievances had been somewhat too long postponed. Although, of course, it was absolutely impossible to consider them while a portion of the force was in a state of rebellion or insubordination, now that the whole force had shown a spirit of loyalty and subordination they would find the Irish Government in no way indisposed to consider their grievances in a proper and even in a generous manner.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked whether, in view of the amount of public feeling regarding the circumstances that led to the tragic events in Belfast an inquiry would be held.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid that the hon. Member would see that at the present moment it was premature to make any reference to that subject. If the public mind should be uneasy on any point, if the people should feel that there was anything requiring to be looked into—he doubted whether that would be the case—no attempt to interfere with such an inquiry would come from him.
  SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid he did not think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education could be surprised if hon. Members on that side of the House raised a discussion on the administration of his Department, which had given rise, not only to anxiety and alarm, but to feelings of condemnation among some of them on those Benches. The right hon. Gentleman would not take it as an offence if he pointed out to him some of the difficulties caused in their minds by his conduct of the Education Department. The whole discussion on the Vote of nearly £14,000,000 was confined to one night, when it was largely interrupted by private business, and when only one Member beyond those on the Front Opposition Bench was able to intervene in the debate to deal with one aspect of the question—he meant the Welsh aspect. That by no means comprised all the difficulties they had felt and still felt. However hon. Gentlemen opposite might wish to look on these matters, there was a strong feeling about them in the country. Hon. Members opposite believed that it was only a small matter; the right hon. Gentleman thought it was a question of method in dealing with the Estimates; in fact, he thought it was a subject of no importance that he had departed from a practice that had prevailed ever since the education grants had appeared on the Estimates, of giving a summary, with something of detail, of the general policy which had guided the Department during the year. He happened to have a considerable recollection of these statements in Parliament. He could recall that he was responsible, in connection with particular parts of the Education Department which were then under his charge, in the drawing up of the statements. He could recall that from the days of
  1680
  Mr. W. E. Forster and Mr. Mundella—two Members of the Liberal Party whose example should be an excellent precedent for hon. Members opposite—on no occasion had they brought forward Estimates without putting the House fully in possession of the policy which had guided their administration during the year. Perhaps some hon. Members thought it perfectly easy to trace the policy of the Education Department through the maze of circulars and orders issued throughout the year. But he could assure them that they were very much mistaken; it was impossible to trace in that way the policy of the Board. The right hon. Gentleman had departed from a precedent which had never been deserted until he had chosen to take this new line on the subject. But there was something more than not having a statement of policy. Very important points had come forward during these discussions connected with the Education Department. He himself remembered that on more than one occasion the Estimates for which he was responsible were refused discussion, and the Motion to report Progress was successful on the ground that their Report was not in the hands of the House. It used to be the continual practice to prepare and distribute the Report before the House proceeded to discuss the Estimates. He knew that that practice was deserted even before the right hon. Gentleman took his present office. It never was deserted so far as he was concerned. He remembered how strict the late Mr. W. H. Smith and the present Leader of the Opposition were upon the point that this Report must be distributed before the discussion of the Estimates took place. The Code, as hon. Members knew, had been repeatedly discussed with a view to its amendment; but that practice also was going. He only mentioned these last two points, not because he wished to put the responsibility on the right hon. Gentleman, but because he wished hon. Members to understand that a thorough discussion of the Education Estimates by the House was impossible if the present practice was continued. The tendency was to make discussion of the Estimates merely formal, and more and more to remove from the House altogether those

  1681
  important statements of policy, as well as the Code and the Report which set forth the action of the Department during the year. If those were gradually withdrawn altogether from the ken of the House, it would increase bureaucratic influence. In his own experience, the only check upon bureaucratic influence was the knowledge, at that time, that any bureaucratic action would sooner or later become matter of debate in the course of the session. He passed from that, which, although it was a matter of far more importance than the ordinary Member of Parliament supposed, was yet only a matter of method, and the right hon. Gentleman might prefer his own method to those sounder ones of his predecessors. But he came to a far greater question which had never had adequate discussion in the House—he referred to the grant of £100,000 for school buildings. That grant he had ventured to point out, when it was before the House in May last, was directly contrary to the Act of Parliament. The Act of 1870 was the first Act which sanctioned the school grant at all; it had previously been only a matter of regulation by Minute. That first Act distinctly refused to the Education Department, any power to make building grants. He had brought this before the Attorney-General, who, he thought, had found it something of a revelation that the Act of 1870 was the first Act which permitted education grants at all. The Attorney-General argued that previous grants had been sanctioned over and over again by different Acts of Parliament, and that a single Act in the year 1870 refusing the building grant was not really a very important episode. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, admitted that it altered the position when he found that the Act of 1870 was the first and only Act up to that time which ever regulated the building grants at all. This was no mere small legal difficulty that he was pointing out; it was not a technicality which might be overridden by a clause in an omnibus measure like the Appropriation Bill. The objection became much stronger when they considered that this was not a technical point at all, but one which, as he contended, went to the very foundation on which the Act
  1682
  of 1870 rested. Before the Act of 1870 they paid grants only to schools in connection with a religious community. They called upon voluntary effort; they promised to maintain the schools, but it was evident that religious bodies could not establish their schools without a building grant. That state of matters entirely ceased when they established the new system under the Act of 1870, with rate-collecting authorities throughout the land. These authorities were made responsible, and at the same time they gave them power and discretion with regard to the building of schools. They supplemented voluntary effort by giving these authorities unlimited power of the purse. They ceased then to interfere with their responsibility or with their power of establishing schools. They left that to be the part of the local education authority, and they set aside the building grant. And to show how fundamentally this was the policy of the Act of 1870, it entered as a first principle into the Act of 1872 for Scotland, all the other provisions of which were distinctly separate from those of the English Act of 1870, because dealing with a different country and a different set of conditions. The two Acts, however, were identical in this particular as to the building grant. What was the right hon. Gentleman doing? He was abandoning that direct legislation without consulting Parliament, without putting before them for deliberate consideration the reversal of policy which was being introduced. He was doing this by unconstitutional means and by the suppression of Parliamentary discussion. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not think he was making any personal attack in using what he believed to be the true words expressive of the situation. The distribution of the grant was to be regulated by the Minute issued within the last day or two. In that Minute the right hon. Gentleman took power to interfere where he thought there had been lack of accommodation. But what sort of accommodation? Action could only be taken upon the requisition of thirty parents, who wanted school accommodation not of any sort recognised under the Code, but only in a provided school. If they

  1683
  desired the Cowper-Temple form of instruction which gave an advantage to those who believed in that particular kind of instruction, then these parents could move the right hon. Gentleman to open the national purse strings and give them a school of their own. Supposing, however, there were thirty Roman Catholics or Church of England parents who were not satisfied with the provided schools. They had used all their efforts in the past and done what they could to provide schools which suited themseves, but if other people were to be helped out of this new purse provided by this Minute, why were Roman Catholics and Members of the Church of England not to have a share of it? Why did the right hon. Gentleman not hold an even balance in the distribution of this money which he had obtained by what amounted to unconstitutional action? The right hon. Gentleman was empowered by this Minute to spend the money as he chose, and he opened his purse strings to one particular form of belief and closed it to those who wished for religious instruction of a different sort. This question he confessed raised not only difficult points of constitutional law and interfered with what was the proper function of Parliament, but it seemed to him in its operation as guided by the new Minute to introduce an unjust and intolerable preference for one class of the community over another. He now came to another part of the administration of the Education Department to which the Opposition and hon. Members below the Gangway entertained the deepest objection. He knew that hon. Members below the Gangway were not anxious for an alliance with the Opposition, but circumstances and unity of sympathy had compelled them to vote with the Opposition upon this question. The Irish Party as well as the Members of the Opposition resisted the arbitrary action of the President of the Board of Education as embodied in the pamphlet which he had issued with regard to training colleges and secondary schools. The question of secondary schools had been passed over almost in silence, and he felt sure the right hon. Gentleman would not say that the subject had received in this House anything like adequate discussion. With regard to training colleges
  1684
  he would like to know if there was to be any sort of similarity of policy binding together the different parts of this "watertight compartment" Government. Did the right hon. Gentleman know that his own colleague in Scotland had largely changed the position of the training colleges of Scotland quite recently, that he had given to those colleges the opportunity of handing themselves over to provincial committees thus enabling them to be carried on if they chose by what were more or less national agencies? He had left to the former managers the power to intervene in the religious instruction, and power to give religious instruction of any kind they wished. More than that, a Minister belonging to the same Party as the President of the Board of Education, whose name and authority as a sound Liberal no hon. Gentleman would challenge—he referred to Sir George Trevelyan—no later than 1894 sanctioned the establishment of a Roman Catholic Training College for the first time in Scotland. The Secretary for Scotland had in no way lessened or diminished the distinctly denominational character of the Catholic training college established by Sir George Trevelyan. Whilst provision had bean made for training colleges in Scotland there had been no restraint put upon their denominational character, and that Catholic training college was being conducted I as a strictly denominational institution. They would be very much surprised if the provisions of the right hon. Gentleman's Minute were applied to them, and if they were bound to take in students without any choice in the matter. He felt certain that sooner than stand such a regulation they would renounce all grants and make any sacrifice in their power to resent what they would consider high-handed tyranny. Was high handed tyranny not the same in Scotland as in England? Was the policy pursued on one side of the Tweed to be diametrically opposite to that followed on the other? If the President of the Board of Education studied the action of his own colleagues in Scotland he would not be able to dispute that the training colleges in Scotland had the power, if they chose, of carrying them on as denominational institutions with an absolute choice of their own students and without the slightest interference from the Department

  1685
  over which the Secretary for Scotland presided. He felt perfectly certain that the question of establishing a Catholic training college in Scotland in 1894 was a Cabinet question. He would be very much surprised to hear that such important regulations as these had not been laid before the Cabinet and approved. He did not see why two different policies should be pursued in England and Scotland in this matter, because the people in the two countries were the same human beings and held the same attachments to religion and the same idea as to fundamental justice and equity of administration. He would now pass from the subject of training colleges to what had received scarcely a word of attention in the House, namely, the secondary schools as dealt with in the pamphlet which had been distributed. Here again the Government had adopted the same extraordinary chameleonic methods. From beginning to end of the right hon. Gentleman's pamphlet these schools were hemmed in by regulations with regard to religious instruction, the religion of the managers of the schools and the religion of the teachers, and restrictions were laid upon them at every step. The regulations for Scotland had been issued in the same week, and from beginning to end of the Minute issued by the Secretary for Scotland there was no rule of any sort whatever with regard to religion and absolute freedom in this matter was left to the schools. He knew that many of those schools which would receive aid in Scotland from the same purse and the same Treasury which was supplying the right hon. Gentleman, would receive that aid although they were Roman Catholic schools distinctly denominational and confined in their attendance, to those who belonged to that creed. There was no comparison between the plan and principles adopted by the two Ministers he had alluded to; they were proceeding upon diametrically opposite lines. He would not attempt to make, the President of the Board of Education responsible for all the divergencies between himself and the Secretary for Scotland in this matter. All he would say was that if the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor at the Board of Education had transported over to Ireland regulations with regard to religious
  1686
  instruction of the kind that was embodied in this Minute he would not have received a favourable welcome from hon. Members below the gangway. It would not have paved the way for a Roman Catholic University or the solving of the difficulties of higher education in Ireland if the Chief Secretary, before he crossed the Irish Channel had fixed his name to a Minute regulating secondary schools which bore the least resemblance to that which had been promulgated by the present President of the Board of Education. But in addition to that was there not something which was absolutely unjust? They were now trying to apply maxims which they had attempted to apply to elementary schools in the Bill of last year. What was the argument in regard to elementary schools? The contention of hon. Gentlemen opposite had been that schools which were entirely maintained by public funds should be devoted to purely undenominational instruction. That was all right for elementary schools, but did the right hon. Gentleman maintain that it applied to secondary schools? Was there a secondary school which did not derive a comparatively small part of its resources from public funds? Was it not the fact that they were in great part supported by funds which had been left by pious founders? In nine cases out of ten there was a distinct obligation to give one form of religious teaching. That being the case, what came of the maxim of hon. Gentlemen opposite about denominational instruction being unjust in publicly maintained schools? How could it be applied to secondary schools when the Exchequer only contributed a small part of their funds? The Government had no right to apply it to them. The laying down of conditions with regard to the religious tenets of managers and teachers was a subject in which no State Department could properly interfere. That lay beyond its powers. He contended that this was the first time in which the Education Department had ever attempted to interfere in this matter. Hitherto it had been decided by Act of Parliament. The Board of Education had assumed for the first time functions from which by the Act of 1870 it was expressly precluded. What he had said proved that he and his friends were not taking undue alarm

  1687
  at the policy which was being pursued by the President of the Board of Education. He had set aside the precedent which had prevailed since the Act of 1870 came into force. This was not a mere technical point of law; it was a fundamental point of policy, and he would be glad if the Attorney-General would give the House his opinion of the course which had been taken. He would ask hon. Members whether it was safe, in looking forward to political changes, to allow the Board of Education to act on the principle, "The spoils to the victors." Was that to be the result in our changing political atmosphere? Hitherto, the broad lines of policy had been laid down by legislative action, and they had not been departed from, no matter what party might be in power. The Government had now established the new principle of giving grants at their own arbitrary will. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had boasted that it was their desire to bring about religious equality and to do away with financial advantages which gave to one form of religion a privileged position. In future hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House would be able to borrow their weapons of attack from the armoury of their opponents. The Government were now giving special privileges and advantages, and it would be from the Party to which he belonged that changes in the direction of religious equality would have to come. He acknowledged the generosity of the President of the Board of Education as an opponent, but he felt bound to offer this criticism of what he believed to be the inconsistent, arbitrary, and unconstitutional policy of the Education Department.
  MR. LANE-FOXsaid the policy of the right hon. Gentleman made them doubt whether the impartiality which had hitherto characterised the work of the Education Department was being upheld. He did not wish to make any personal attacks on the President of the Board of Education, but it appeared that the impartiality which ought to characterise the administration of his Department was not being adhered to, and that a new partisan spirit was creeping into the administration. He desired to call attention to the
  1688
  failure of the Department in regard to certain cases in the West Riding of Yorkshire. In the West Riding those who desired to see the denominational schools continued were in a considerable minority on the county councils, and on the education committee they were only allowed a representation of four; therefore they were practically powerless, and they looked to the right hon. Gentleman to protect them against the action which the majority were taking. Certain papers had been laid in Parliament referring to the case of a school at Royston where, in his opinion, the Board of Education had failed. That case arose owing to the refusal of the local education authority to confirm the appointment by the managers of a schoolmaster from a neighbouring school. The managers appealed to the Board of Education. It was admitted on all hands that the schoolmaster was a first-class man who had the very best reports. The whole case against the schoolmaster rested on the report of the sub-committee of the local education authority, which went and visited the school and examined the schoolmaster. His information was that their visit was a very perfunctory one, and there was very considerable doubt whether they were in the school more than a quarter of an hour. No one would dispute that the weight of the evidence of the sub-committee must be very small as against all the reports in favour of the schoolmaster, and yet on the report of the sub-committee alone the education authority refused, as they said, on educational grounds to appoint this man. On that report alone the local education authority refused to appoint Mr. Milnes as head master. Thereupon the Board of Education sent down their own inspector to make inquiry, and on receipt of his report the following letter was forwarded to the local education authority—
  "In reply to Mr. Dixon's letter of 7th January, I am directed to state that the Board of Education understand that the unfavourable opinion formed by the authority as to the educational qualifications of Mr. Milnes for the appointment of head-master to the Royston National School was based upon a report furnished by their inspector of a visit paid by him to Sharlston School in company of two members of the local education authority. It appears to be admitted that this visit did not occupy more than three-quarters of an hour, and that a part only

  1689
  of this time was occupied in inspecting the working of the school.
  "On the other hand, the Board thinks it right to point out that Mr. Milnes' career as master of the school, as shown in the reports of His Majesty's Inspectors, presents an unbroken record of success and good deserts under very adverse circumstances; and that his testimonials, including one from the head-master of a large school in Leeds, speak in the highest terms of his qualifications. Mr. Marvin, His Majesty's inspector, states as follows: 'Mr. Milnes is unquestionably one of the most deserving of the younger men in my own part of the West Hiding, one out of quite a small number of men whom we would naturally have thought of for such promotion as this. I enclose copies of his reports, etc., both of my own and other inspectors, which, favourable as they are, do not fully describe his work or merit. He is a very popular teacher, and has a great personal influence over the scholars, caring for them out of school as well as in, starting football clubs, etc., and having in this way not only largely increased the number of scholars on his roll, but attaining generally the most regular attendance in the neighbourhood. Side by side with this he has worked steadily at improving himself, attending all sorts of classes, often at considerable cost and trouble.' In view of the above, the Board cannot but think that your committee have been misled in the opinion they have formed of Mr. Milnes' fitness for the post of head master of the Royston school, and that on reconsidering the matter they will approve the appointment."
  That was a very right and proper letter for the Board of Education to send to the local education authority, who, however, reiterated their opinion in regard to Mr. Milnes, and the Board at once declined to confirm that gentleman's appointment. On 8th March the following letter was written by the Board to the chairman of the managers of the school—
  "With reference to previous correspondence, I am directed to state that the Board of Education have very carefully considered the appeal of your managers made against the refusal of the local education authority to consent to the appointment of Mr. O'B. Milnes as head-master of the above-named school (Royston).
  "The duty of the Board in such cases is confined to determining in accordance with the provision of Section 7 (1) (c) of the Education Act, 1902, whether the consent of the authority is withheld upon educational grounds, and the authority having informed the Board that, after taking such steps as they deemed to be satisfactory and sufficient to ascertain the educational qualification of Mr. Milnes, they have come to the conclusion that he is not up to the standard which they consider desirable for Royston, and for that reason have decided not to confirm his appointment.
  "Under these circumstances the refusal of the authority appears to be based upon educational
  1690
  grounds within the meaning of the abovementioned section, and the Board so determined. They are not prepared, therefore, to interfere with the discretion of the local Education authority in the matter."
  The House would see that the Board had deliberately refused to go into the merits of the case, and rested their action solely upon the fact that the local education authority had reiterated their opinion as to Mr. Milnes' unfitness. He contended that there was no question among those who understood the whole facts and circumstances of the locality that the action of the local education authority was not based solely on educational grounds, but there was a strong suspicion that it was taken on political grounds. A very vital and important principle was involved in this case, and that was his excuse for going into the details of it. The President of the Board of Education, in answer to a question expressed his disinclination to publish all the correspondence, stating that it would not be in the interest of the teacher to do so. That remark had, he maintained, inflicted a grievous wrong on this particular teacher, because, when the evidence was afterwards gone into, it was found that no case had been made against the teacher except the report of the local education authority. Fortunately that teacher was a member of the National Union of Teachers, but whether the union would be able to give him help he could not say. He would only mention in two or three words other cases which had occurred in the West Riding. At Low Valley the Roman Catholics were refused education grants, although they were educating 130 children, on the ground that the school had been condemned by the local education authority. The Roman Catholics had, however, built a new school, and he contended that, as long as a school was obviously doing a work which required to be done, and for want of which there would be a serious lack of educational facilities, such school should receive the Government grant instead of the expenses having to be paid out of private funds. Then there was a case of a small school at East Hardwick, which had a population of only 120. The managers were there informed some years ago by a previous Board of Education that some alterations were necessary

  1691
  in the school. The managers were prepared to carry these out, and plans were drawn embodying the improvements suggested. These plans were sent to the local education authority, which no doubt forwarded them to the Board of Education; but from that day to this they had never seen the plans again, and the only answer they received from the Board of Education was that under no circumstances could the school be given the educational grant. He thought it was only right that if the plans had been considered unsatisfactory the managers should have been told so. He did not think that that was a fair manner of dealing with a small village school, and the Board of Education should have shown more consideration for this tiny hamlet. He also called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a case which had arisen at Garforth, a village in his own constituency. The local education authority had recently built a very large council school, and, finding that they were unable to fill it, they required that the four upper standards of the old Church school should proceed after the holidays to the council school. One hundred and twenty out of 124 parents of the children attending the Church school had petitioned in favour of the children being allowed to remain at the Church school. In view of this fact, as well as of the fact that the managers were strongly opposed to the action of the local education authority, which he thought was contrary to the Education Act, he appealed to the President of the Board of Education, whose position I should be that of arbitrator between the teachers and the managers, and the managers and the local education authority, to see that justice was done between the parties.
  MR. ROBINSONsaid he wished to ask the President of the Board of Education a question about higher education in Wales. Some wild statements had been made as to the loss of grants owing to the last orders of the new Welsh Education Department. It was said that £20,000 had been lost to the Principality annually owing to those orders, and he would like to know if that was the fact. He knew the
  1692
  subject had been made the occasion of Question and Answer in the House, but he and all who were interested in Welsh Education would like to have the answer amplified and to know whether the basis on which the grant was given to Wales could be considered a fair one. It should, he thought, be founded upon the number of scholars who wished to learn in these schools rather than upon population. He did not consider the latter was a fair system of apportioning the grants to be given for education.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA, Monmouthshire, N.)said that he would like to deal with several of the minor points which had been put to him before he came to the main consideration of the grant of £100,000. As to the question of his hon. friend the Member for Brecknock, he could assure him that the Welsh secondary schools had not suffered financially under the new regulations which had been issued. When the Welsh Department was formed, it became a question, if different regulations were issued in Wales from those issued in England, how much money Wales ought to get out of the total grants to secondary schools and pupil teachers. The allocation of the grants as between England and Wales on the basis of population would not be a satisfactory arrangement. They had to consider not only population, but also the number of scholars to be provided for. He therefore did not take population as a basis, and, in the absence of any other guide, he had for the present year, and perhaps for future years, determined to continue the same proportion as had actually been paid to England and Wales respectively during the last three years. He found, as a fact, that the expenditure in Wales on secondary schools and pupil teachers was one-eleventh of the expenditure in England—the population of Wales was only something like one-fifteenth or one sixteenth of that of England—and he therefore thought it right to give to Wales one-eleventh of the money given to England. Wales had had her full share of the money,

  1693
  and he trusted future Presidents of the Board of Education would always see that she did. The hon. Member for Barkston Ash had raised the question of the proposed appointment of a teacher for the Royston school and the rejection of that teacher by the local education authority. He could not help thinking that the hon. Member had not been a careful student of the Act of 1902. He had never agreed with that Act, nor liked it, but he had got to interpret it. That Act said that the local education authority might reject the teacher on educational grounds, and did not provide that those grounds should be such as the Board of Education deemed sufficient. In this case the local authority did reject the teacher on educational grounds, and had refused to reconsider their decision, and the Board of Education had no power to interfere. With regard to the Low Valley school, that was struck off the grant list by his predecessor, and provision had to be made for the scholars. The local authority gave notice of their intention to build a school for the Catholic children, and other children, and the statutory three months' notice was given. The Catholic parents or managers of the Low Valley school raised no objection, and accordingly the local authority obtained permission to build a school, not only for other children, but for the Catholic children. If the managers of the Low Valley school had given notice they would have had good cause for complaint, but having allowed the three months to elapse the local education authority had the right to build the school.
  MR. LANE-FOXsaid that what he had asked was why, when the Roman Catholics had a school and were providing accommodation, the Low Valley school could not obtain a grant.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid if they were once put upon the grant list again he could not remove them except for some special reason. But the real fact was that there was a deficiency of accommodation. If the local authority which had undertaken to provide the proper accommodation did not do so then would be the opportunity of the Low Valley school to make their case good.
  1694
  But this school had so conducted itself in the past that the hon. Baronet opposite had had to strike it off the grant list. The hon. Member for Glasgow University, an experienced educationst, had charged him with departing from precedent in presenting the Estimates this year without making a long preliminary statement. At the same time the hon. Gentleman complained that there was not sufficient time to discuss the Estimates. He (Mr. McKenna) had to remember that there were many matters in regard to which his action might be complained of; hon. Members had the opportunity of raising those points, and had he begun by making a statement it would have occupied very valuable time, and would not have enlightened them upon any subject upon which they desired information. So far from being unwilling to meet those complaints, or to give hon. Members an opportunity of raising them, the request for a day to discuss the Education Estimates came from himself and not from hon. Members opposite, and knowing the time was limited he had refrained from opening the discussion by an hour and a half's preliminary statement. Everything which he had done was known. The very points which were the grounds of attack on that occasion had been the grounds of attack again to-night. No statement that he made then had been able to satisfy them, and he feared that no statement which he made now would effect that purpose. As to the grant of £100,000, the Leader of the Opposition had spoken of it as violating the law. That he took to be mere misuse of language. It was a matter of regret that the Leader of the Opposition should use an expression which was liable to misconstruction, and which had been misconstrued outside. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean that he had violated the law in such a way as to bring himself into conflict with the Law Courts? Surely not. All that he had asked was that the House of Commons in Committee should pass a Resolution authorising the expenditure of £100,000. No Resolution of the House of Commons could be a violation of the law. It could not be the subject of injunction by a Court of Law, and there was no

  1695
  power to restrain the House from passing any Resolution which it thought fit. Did the right hon. Gentleman contemplate the contingency of the House violating the law of Parliament? If the House of Commons had violated the law of Parliament it would have been a breach of order, and Mr. Speaker had declared that no question of order could arise on this Vote of £100,000. What the right hon. Gentleman did mean was that the preliminary stages of a proposed grant of money would be inconsistent with an existing statutory provision, and that to avoid invalidity or irregularity it would require confirmation by another statutory provision overriding the former. He admitted that inconsistency, and the provision in the present Bill was proposed to remove precisely that irregularity which had been referred to. He explained that any grant of money by the House must pass through three stages. First, there must be a Resolution in Committee, next there must be a Resolution of the House agreeing with the Committee, and lastly there must be an Act confirming the Resolution of the House. The preliminary Committee might be either a Committee of Supply or a special Committee set up for the purpose. If the Resolution was passed in Committee of Supply it was confirmed by the Appropriation Act; if passed by a special Committee it was passed by a special money Act or money clause in an ordinary Act. Either procedure was equally orderly and regular. The complaint made in the present case was that procedure by special Act was not adopted.
  SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid his contention was that the right hon. Gentleman should have brought in a Bill to repeal Section 97 of the Act of 1870.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid there was nothing unconstitutional in not specifically repealing that clause. The statutes bristled with contradictory clauses, and the Law Courts always held that the latest statute prevailed. But even if he had proceeded by special Bill the preliminary procedure would have been exactly the same and therefore in the view of the hon. Gentleman equally illegal. It would have been necessary, before that Bill was
  1696
  introduced, to have had a Resolution in Committee followed by a Resolution of the House agreeing with it. The hon. Gentleman was not content with either of these Resolutions, but he thought the two stages were necessary before a Bill could be introduced.
  SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid he would have liked Parliament to have had an opportunity of discussing and considering expressly the repeal of Section 97 of the Act of 1870.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid that there the hon. Gentleman was on much better ground. He had thrown over the Leader of the Opposition. Note would be taken of this, because tin matter has been a subject of very vigorous attack throughout the country.
  SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid he had not changed a single word of the speech he made; he was using the same words as he used before.
  MR. MCKENNAcongratulated the hon. Gentleman on occupying much safer ground than his Leader. He had taken down what was actually said by the Leader of the Opposition. He used the words that he (Mr. McKenna) was "violating the law" by passing this Bill. The noble Lord on the Front Bench cheered.
  LORD BALCARRESasked whether it was the fact that after the Appropriation Bill was passed Section 97 of the Act of 1870 would still remain in operation.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid that certainly Clause 97 would still remain on the Statute Book unrepealed, but there would be a later statute authorising the expenditure of a particular sum for a particular purpose and over a particular period, and the later Act authorising the expenditure of that money would override the Act of 1870. The procedure by a Money Bill dealing with this case would have required first a Resolution in Committee, a Resolution of the House, and a Bill maturing into an Act. The first two stages of the Special Bill, which according to the hon. Gentleman would have been

  1697
  perfectly constitutional and proper, would have been actually open to the charge of involving a breach of the law. Where the intention was to make a permanent change in the law, procedure by special Act was to be preferred; but here the object was to meet a temporary difficulty arising out of an unsatisfactory Act which the Commons had tried to amend and would have amended but for the action of the House of Lords, and which they proposed to amend as soon as possible. To meet such a case the procedure adopted was perfectly appropriate. The hon. Gentleman had laid stress upon the fact that by adopting this procedure he had evaded criticism. The matter was explained and fully discussed in March on the Appropriation Bill at the end of the last financial year. It was explained and fully discussed on the Estimates. In order to avoid any question of the House being taken by surprise on the point he had the Estimate containing this particular item reprinted and specially circulated. It was now being discussed for the third time, and if there ever was a subject which had been fully brought to the notice of the House and the country it was this expenditure of £100,000 under the present proposal. The real persons, if there were any, on whose behalf the Leader of the Opposition was speaking were not Members of that House but Members of another place, who were his clients. The real ground of objection to the proposal was that it lessened or destroyed the power of interference by the House of Lords, and that was precisely what it was intended to do. The policy of the present Government was to maintain and vindicate by every means at their disposal the right of the House of Commons to say how the money which they had voted should be spent. He hoped the hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition would now be satisfied that the action he had taken was perfectly legal. However much the hon. Gentleman might dislike it, he had shown no ground for supposing that it was unconstitutional, if by unconstitutional he meant anything more than unusual. It was perfectly appropriate to the present circumstances, and it carried out the settled policy of the Government to vindicate the right of the House of Commons to control its finances. The hon. Gentleman
  1698
  had complained of their training college regulations, and had pointed to the admirable example of Scotland, stating that the method he (Mr. McKenna) was adopting was diametrically opposite to the policy of his right hon. friend the Secretary for Scotland. But he was informed what the policy of his right hon. friend with regard to training colleges had been.
  SIR HENRY CRAIK: And religious instruction?
  MR. MCKENNA: The hon. Gentleman did not tell us in what my right hon. friend's policy differed from mine.
  SIR HENRY CRAIK: It gave perfect freedom with regard to religious instruction, and the carrying on of denominational schools was permitted, but the right hon. Gentleman denies that in England.
  MR. MCKENNA: I must have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. If, as I understand, he says that I have denied to any training college, the right to retain the unfettered power of giving denominational instruction, and only denominational instruction, he is absolutely mistaken.
  SIR HENRY CRAIK: I put it most strongly that in Scotland the choice of pupils was left to the Roman Catholic training colleges and others, and that it has been taken away from them in England.
  MR. MCKENNA: The first point was the right to give denominational instruction. That remained absolutely the same in this country as in Scotland. He could ease the mind of the hon. Gentleman on that. The second complaint was that in England they had limited, and no more, the free right of objection to any applicant for admission to a training college to reasonable grounds of refusal. The Government had said they would not include as reasonable grounds any ground of faith or social status. That was what had been called running diametrically opposite to the policy of his right hon. friend. If the hon. Gentleman was still of that opinion that their policy

  1699
  was diametrically opposite, he used language in a different sense from that in which he used it himself.
  SIR HENRY CRAIK: Hear, hear!
  MR. MCKENNA: Then the hon. Gentleman complained that the President of the Board of Education had no right to make directions by regulation as to the form of religious instruction in secondary schools. That, the hon. Gentleman contended, should be done by Bill. The whole of our system of secondary school grants, and, indeed, of training college grants, had been built up without Bill and solely by regulation. His procedure by regulation this year was exactly the same method as had been adopted on every occasion by his predecessors.
  SIR HENRY CRAIK: No regulation with regard to secondary schools has ever interfered with their religion before.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid that that was not the point. The point was the government of secondary schools and training colleges, and in that no Minister had ever proceeded except by regulation. Conditions had been laid down by successive Ministers for the giving of the grant to secondary schools and they had varied from time to time according to the policy of the Government of the day. The policy of the Government of to-day was to ensure equality between sects, and the Government, had, therefore, laid down equality of religions in the eye of the law as one of its conditions of secondary grants. The method he had adopted was the one any other Minister would have adopted, he would almost say must have adopted. The procedure had been uniform and unbroken to act by regulation and not by Bill. The hon. Gentleman had said that he was fostering "one form of religious belief." Outside that House he heard from time to time a great misuse of language, but never in his life had he heard such a perversion of the plainest English as that which he had heard from the hon. Gentleman. Was the hon. Gentleman's "one form of religious belief" this religious instruction which did not include any catechism or formulary distinctive of a particular denomination?
  SIR HENRY CRAIK: Hear, hear!
  MR. MCKENNAsaid the hon. Gentleman called a form of teaching which did not include any catechism, or formulary distinctive of any particular religious denomination, "one form of religious belief," and that he was permitting that "one form of religious belief" at the expense of all the others. Surely these words were intended to be and had been a denial that any fovour was given by the State to any particular form of religious belief. These words—the Cowper-Temple Clause—represented not one religious belief, but religious teaching which was not characteristic of one religious belief or of one particular denomination. It was a form of religion which could be accepted by all Christians, and therefore they could not charge the Government with fostering one religious belief at the expense of all others. They had sought to put all religious denominations on an equal footing in the eye of the law, giving preference to no one of them. Only by a violent misuse of language could the charge made against the Board of Education be sustained. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman would hereafter, in bringing charges against the Board—though he had not a word to say against his manner, and he thanked him for his courteous references to himself—would do him the justice to believe that he was actuated by an earnest deire to secure equality for persons of all creeds. He had absolutely no prejudice in his mind against Catholic, Anglican, Jew, or any Nonconformist denomination. The sole desire of the Board was to secure that citizens should have equal treatment, no matter what their faith might be. Those were the principles upon which he desired to act, and so long as he acted on those principles he trusted he would have the support of the House.
  SIR W. ANSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman had defended himself against a powerful attack with force, eloquence, and dexterity, but he had failed to carry conviction to the minds of all. The position of the Board of Education was one of exceptional power and freedom.

  1701
  The Board spent nearly £14,000,000 a year, and as regarded the greater portion of that expenditure the money was spent entirely free from criticism, or at any rate free from any criticism which could be described as effective. Something like £12,000,000 was administered under the Code, and all that was required in respect of that expenditure was that the Code should lie on the Table of the House one month during the session. They all knew what that might amount to. If it lay on the Table of the House during the busy part of the session the only opportunities they got of discussing the question were curtailed by the interposition of Government business. Other educational payments which the Board administered amounted to more than £1,000,000 upon training colleges, secondary schools, and technical instruction, and these could all be administered under regulations which did not need to lie on the Table of the House, but could be moulded and altered and brought into effect as the Board of Education thought fit. What did they expect in return? They were entitled to demand that the money should be spent entirely upon educational purposes, and that neither religion nor politics should be allowed to enter into the distribution of the money. Was that principle being carried out? The right hon. Gentleman had defended himself against a charge of illegality, but the word sometimes meant unconstitutionality, and his action in regard to this £100,000 might come under the description of unconstitutional. But the right hon. Gentleman had told the House that, constitutional or not, this was part of a larger policy. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he did it to vindicate the right of the House of Commons to expend public money; but the House of Lords had never interfered with the expenditure of public money for educational purposes. Therefore, in order to vindicate a right that had never been disputed, the right hon. Gentleman practically repealed the Education Act of 1870 and took £100,000 out of the reach even of the House of Commons in order to expend it upon purposes expressly forbidden by statute. This the right hon. Gentleman had done in order to vindicate a right which the House of Lords had never disputed. He would not labour the question of illegality
  1702
  or unconstitutionality in regard to the method adopted of dealing with this £100,000, beyond stating that, considering the freedom with which the Board of Education were allowed to expend the money entrusted to them for educational purposes, he thought they were entitled to demand that no other considerations but educational purposes should be allowed to enter into the expenditure of the Board of Education. This £100,000 was to be spent in order to enable local authorities to run public elementary schools in opposition or juxtaposition to the voluntary schools. Then he would turn to the case of the training colleges and secondary schools. Nobody doubted the fact that the training colleges had been regulated by regulations, but in the framing of the regulations strict impartiality had always been observed. Wherever a denomination had established a training college the Board had given grants on a certain scale. The same thing had been done in respect of grants to training colleges established by local authorities. Exact equality had been observed in all cases. Now the President of the Board of Education was going to treat these training colleges in such a way that the denominational training of the college, unless it was to lose the grants altogether, ran serious risk. There was practical certainty of their being filled with undenominational students who would not accept the ordinary conditions of residence and follow the religious observances of the colleges. That would be a complete departure from the purposes for which the colleges were established. The Board of Education, instead of having regard only to educational considerations, had now entered the field of religious controversy, and was going to assist one religious denomination against all the others. In the past the Board had always observed strict neutrality as between one religious denomination and another. If the denominational training colleges were unable to accept the terms the right hon. Gentleman imposed, then at once the right hon. Gentleman knocked off the sources of supply of four-fifths of his trained teachers. That was paying a heavy price for the gratification of his animosity against the denominational training colleges. In the same

  1703
  way, the policy of the Board with regard to secondary schools in the past had always been an educational policy, but the new regulations displayed both the political and religious feelings of the Board. The President of the Board of Education spoke of equality, but if he considered that he was maintaining religious equality by saying to the denominational secondary schools, "As you prefer denominational education you must be satisfied with the lower grant," and to the undenominational secondary schools, "We regard you as the champions of religious freedom, and therefore you shall have the higher grant," then the very rudiments of religious equality were alien to the right hon. Gentleman's mind. But the Board not only enjoyed these large powers in the expenditure of public money; they also were entrusted with the interpretation of large portions of the Education Acts, in case of dispute, and from their decision there was no appeal. He complained of the use made of this power. He thought that in the Low Valley case the Board of Education acted unjustly to the Roman Catholics, and that the teacher in the Royston case had suffered hardly at their hands. He was constrained to admit that the Board were bound to accept the decision of the local education authority once it was sufficiently based on educational grounds. But as appeared from the published papers, on the 8th March the Board wrote to the local education authority that—
  "From the information before them the Board felt some doubt as to the correctness of the view taken by the authority as to Mr. Milnes's qualifications. The Board would certainly have felt great reluctance in basing a decision of so grave a character upon a single report made under the circumstances described."
  But after this expression of opinion the President of the Board of Education stated in the House that it was undesirable in the interests of the teacher to publish all the correspondence. That, he thought, suggested a very serious reflection on the capacity of the teacher, and considering that the whole of the papers connected with the case did not appear until the end of June, he considered that the teacher had suffered rather hardly at the hands of the Board of Education. In regard to the Merionethshire case, where the teachers in the
  1704
  voluntary schools had been deprived of their salaries till the holidays were over, he thought that the President of the Board of Education and the Attorney General had put the most technical construction upon the plain meaning of the Act. It was plain that it was the business of the Board to inform all parties concerned that they had a weapon in their hands and would use it if necessary to prevent hardship. He was quite willing to admit that the Board could not pay the money until the managers had incurred the expense, but I it was plain that as the local authority had failed to do its duty it was the business of the Board to see that the grievance was redressed, and that no I injustice was done.
  MR. MCKENNApointed out that the words of the Act were "may, if it is expedient to do so." The question of I expediency had to be considered.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he quite realised that the expediency had to be considered, but could there be any doubt as to expediency, when the teachers had earned the money under conditions which made it essential to them that the money should be paid when due, and when the Board of Education knew that the money was withheld for an unworthy purpose?
  MR. MCKENNA: Certainly.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that the Board of Education seemed very reluctant to use the information at their hands. In view of the undisputed matter of fact placed before the House a few nights ago on the Motion for adjournment, if the Board of Education had any doubt as to the expediency of taking action, all he could say was that it showed that the voluntary schools would not get justice under the Education Acts when the Board of Education had to administer them. He regretted that the President of the Board of Education for, no doubt, good reason to his own mind, had not made a preliminary statement on introducing his Estimates. This statement was an invariable custom on introducing the Vote for Education. It was important that they should have full

  1705
  knowledge of the policy of the Board. The large sum at the disposal of the Board, the wide powers at their disposal, the range of educational interests, and the relations of the Board with local authorities combined to make such a statement necessary. The Opposition were not satisfied that the great sum of money which Parliament had placed at the disposal of the Board was being administered impartially, solely from educational considerations, without considerations of questions political and religious. They were not satisfied that the Board preserved in its interpretation of the statute the judicial attitude which it ought to preserve. They felt that a large range of the work of education ought to be non-contentious, but that the recent action of the Board had brought political and religious contention into almost every branch of our educational system. He felt that the education of the country would suffer, and that the action of the Board would be regretted by all who were interested in education.
  MR. MACKARNESScalled attention to the sentences on the Denshawi prisoners. He said that as long as those sentences remained, a great injustice was being done. For nearly fourteen months these prisoners had been subject to the severest kind of penal servitude in a blazing sun, with their feet in irons. If they committed any offence at all, they had suffered abundantly. The court that passed these sentences abolished the ordinary law, and deprived the prisoners of a number of elaborate safeguards. If these men had been tried by the ordinary law, they could not have been sentenced to more than three years' hard labour. The death sentence could not have been carried out without the approval of the Khedive. The trial would have been before a jury and would have been conducted with decent deliberation, and there would have been an appeal on any point of law. In spite of the action of the British representative during the last few years in stopping public executions and putting an end to flogging, these prisoners were publicly executed and were subjected to 400 lashes. These punishments were admitted, he thought,
  1706
  to have been far in excess of anything the offences could possibly have deserved, and he wished, therefore, to urge on the Government the real urgency of not allowing these unfortunate villagers any longer to continue under the infliction of these very severe punishments. If the two life sentences were estimated at twenty-five years each, no less than 100 years penal servitude had been inflicted on these prisoners. He also wished to urge on the Foreign Secretary that the decree under which the tribunal came into existence which passed these sentences and inflicted these heavy punishments should not be allowed to remain on thet Satute-book of Egypt. It could not possibly conduce to strengthen our position in Egypt or to make our Army popular with the Egyptians that such a tribunal should be brought into existence for the purpose of giving a sort of sacred character to the British troops and treating any offence against them as a kind of high treason. The decree was actually justified by Lord Cromer on the ground that it enabled the Court to pass severer sentences than the law of Egypt would otherwise sanction. He described as indecent the haste with which the trial was carried out, the proceedings having been begun the very day after the offences were committed, and being conducted in their preliminary stages in secret, and without legal assistance for the prisoners. Four days later the trial was begun, and within less than a week all the sentences, including the hanging and the floggings, were carried out. That was more dangerous than a Court Martial, which only came into operation in time of war or insurrection, and the sentences of which were revised by the General, acting upon the legal advice of the Judge-Advocate-General. He appealed to the Foreign Secretary, as a Liberal to a Liberal, not to allow these men one day longer than was necessary to continue to suffer their heavy punishment.
  MR. SMEATONsaid he desired to ask a question with regard to the Franco-Siamese treaty concluded in March last. The British Government had not, apparently, been consulted by either of the two contracting Governments before the terms had been finally settled. He had been brought into contact

  1707
  with the officials of these two Governments in 1896, in connection with certain frontier matters in the remote Shan States, and had some experience of the difficulty attendant on their settlement—a settlement on which Siam and France took part. He wished to know whether the recent treaty infringed the convention entered into between France and this country in 1896 to maintain the integrity of Siam, and whether there was any chance of the independence of Siam being threatened. Under the provisions of this treaty the Siamese Government had surrended three large provinces in exchange for two very small districts, and the only quid pro quo the Siamese obtained was a concession in regard to jurisdiction over Siamese subjects who had been registered at French Consular Courts. He would like to have some assurance from the Foreign Secretary that there was no I power given to the French Government which infringed the independence of Siam or the liberties of her subjects. There had been a good deal of diplomatic friction between the two Governments in regard to this registration, and the Siamese Government had ground for remonstrance, seeing that its subjects were able by registering themselves at the French Consular Courts, to escape Siamese jurisdiction and Siamese taxes. If the exchange of territory resulted in a satisfactory settlement of this question, well and good. But there was also a number of long leases granted to the French Government of territories on the right bank of the Mekong for various purposes, of a kind to arouse inquiry, because long leases of that kind really meant, practically, annexation. Would the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the negotiations embodied in the Treaty were in no way inimical to Siamese interests or injurious to the prestige and honour as well as material interests of Great Britain.
  MR. REESsaid he had heard this debate range from Monmouth to Macedon, at least if it had not got to Macedon, Macedon was the next station. The President of the Board of Education had left; he wished he had been there that he might have asked him how the project was progressing for getting Welsh Education, and if possible,
  1708
  all Welsh business into the hands of one Minister responsible to the House. If they had a Welsh Minister it would be progress in the direction of Home Rule of the right kind, to which one speaker had referred. He would not have referred to Egypt had it not been for the manner in which the hon. Gentleman below him had discussed for the third time the question which had been recently before the House, regarding which the Foreign Secretary had given perfectly satisfactory assurances. When he heard the hon. Gentleman dwell again upon the subject, he wondered whether the Egypt under discussion was indeed that land of Egypt, which under English administration had ceased to deserve its traditional title of "The House of Bondage." He could not understand why it should be thought that our fellow-countrymen in Egypt were less humane than we were here. It might be, how-however, that while they were as humane they were not so humanitarian. His hon. friend in this matter spoke from the text "righteousness that exalted a nation," which was a very good text to some; but it was righteousness and not self-righteousness which exalted the nations. He protested against the implication that our officers who governed Egypt were in any degree less humane, less just, or less sympathetic than we were. The fact was that the hon. Gentleman would appear to say that every man who went from here to foreign countries to administer their affairs, suffered a terrible change of character, and they said: "Oh, he has got into a tainted atmosphere." But there were two explanations of this change, and the other was less flattering to those who took this line, and that was, that when one was brought into actual contact with the problem of governing other races, one learned something about them which might serve to disturb the complacent survey which was so usual with those who had not themselves participated in the government of foreign races, and were not aware of the difficulty and complexity of the problems which arose. It was the spirit which had informed the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, of whom he wished to speak with respect, that had led him into this digression. For his part he

  1709
  wanted to refer to a subject as to which he did not ask the Foreign Secretary to give him any information. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he did not wish to give it, but perhaps the House would forgive him for referring to Persia, a country in which he had a great interest, and with which his official duties connected him in some sense for a great many years. Perhaps he would be allowed to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman, without asking him to explain matters or give any information, that any arrangement made with Russia should be as complete, and as general as possible for the benefit of the people of this country and for the benefit of the people of Russia. Both would equally profit by a pacific and harmonious understanding. That agreement would admittedly affect Persia, which in fact formed a portion of our Indian frontier, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman, in drawing the line delimiting the spheres of influence—he did not ask him the character of that line or the nature of the spheres of influence—not only to hold on to the Gulf, which indeed necessarily must be in the British sphere, but also on no account to let go the approach to the Gulf which passed through the wild and mountainous Bakhtiari country to the Karum. This formed the chief outlet for British commerce down towards the Gulf, and it was no less necessary to keep also that access which led, in ancient times, from Media to Assyria and in modern times from Baghdad and Mesopotamia to Kermanshah and Teheran. He begged the right hon. Gentleman, as one interested in the country, and he was sure that there were other members equally interested, to secure that both these routes, as far as possible, should remain what they were now, feeders of British commerce. He did not suppose that even if the spheres of influence did not run as he desired, that they would exactly cease to be feeders of British commerce. But if trade fell into another sphere, the first call for a concession for a railway or for commercial concessions would naturally fall to that country which had the route concerned within its sphere of influence.
  1710
  To refer to another subject, the hon. Member for Peterborough, the other night, had expressed the strongest anti-Turkish feeling, which was so common and so frequently expressed in that House. He wished that this subject was more calmly and more temperately considered. In point of fact it was of the greatest importance to us. We actually had more Mahomedan subjects than the Sultan of Turkey who was regarded by Mahomedans with the greatest respect and veneration, and almost worship. It was most desirable that the Sultan should be spoken of with respect in discussing these matters, and the dislike which some had to him ought at least to be dissembled. He did not share that dislike himself. He was acquainted with the Mahomedans and their languages, and he believed them to be on the whole a most excellent race. He regretted it when he heard hon. Gentlemen speak as though it should be taken for granted that, in the affairs of Eastern Europe especially, the Turks were always wrong and other people always right. The real fact was that it was because of the quarrels between the Greeks and Bulgars that the Turks were compelled to keep a large army in the so-called Macedonia to prevent the different sects of Christians from cutting each other's throats; and if the Turks got involved in those disturbances, which was not unnatural, it seemed to him most unjust to take for granted that the Turks were always in the wrong. They were not nearly so much to blame as the two peoples who were chiefly occupied in disturbing the peace of that region. It seemed to him that it was not an improper thing that one who had spent a great deal of his life amongst Mahomedans should repudiate this idea and the attitude which was invariably taken up in these matters of unreasoning condemnation of a Mahomedan and a Turk because he was a Mahomedan and a Turk. He hoped the Foreign Secretary would not be forced into taking any independent action in this matter but would maintain the position he had taken up following upon the policy of his predecessor in office of acting strictly within the concert of European powers concerned.
  MR. LYNCHsaid he rose for the purpose of giving the Foreign Secretary an opportunity of dealing, if he thought fit, with certain important points in connection with Macedonia which were left untouched in his reply on the Foreign Office Vote the other evening. During that debate they had discussed such questions as the Sugar Convention, the Congo State and the Egyptian administration; and the right hon. Baronet only gave five minutes to Macedonia at the end of his speech. In the course of his own speech he had asked the Foreign Secretary two specific questions. First, whether he would direct that a synoptical table should be prepared for the whole of the year 1906, showing in brief the number of violent deaths and deeds of violence committed each month during the year, and to what causes such outrages were due; and also direct that a similar synoptical table should be prepared for each subsequent year. He might point out that the materials for such a table were contained in the Blue Book, Turkey, No. 1, 1907, for each month except the last, so that it should not be difficult for His Majesty's Consul-General at Salonika to complete a table for the year. Secondly, whether he would direct that the British Financial Delegate in Macedonia should, in future, in presenting his abstract of the Macedonian Budget include under the "Revenue" column the revenue collected in Macedonia on account of Customs duties and on account of revenues assigned to the service of the Public Debt, and any other revenues properly belonging to Macedonia, whether under the control of the Financial Commission or not, in the same way that he included under the "Expenditure" column expenditure which was not under the control of the Financial Commission. In this way only was it possible to arrive at any true estimate of the financial condition of Macedonia. He would also like to ask him whether the Austrian Government had yet presented their scheme for judicial reforms in Macedonia. The Secretary for Foreign Affairs had already told them that it had been promised this summer. The summer was now almost over. Lastly, he would like to know whether the functions of the Financial Commission,
  1712
  which was the instrument of reform in Macedonia, had been extended for the period of seven years for which the increase in the Customs had been granted. In the course of his reply on the Foreign Office Vote, the right hon. Baronet did not even notice the point which he made at some length—and he could confidently say that it was a point of much importance—that the deficit said to exist in th Macedonian Budget, and to meet which they had agreed to the 3 percent. increase in the Customs duties, was, in fact, nonexistent—an apparent but not a real deficit. He did not propose to go into this question in detail now, or to repeat what he said the other evening; but he might, perhaps, be allowed to say that the deficit of £750,000 a year was arrived at by omitting from the revenue side of the account the proceeds of the Customs duties levied in Macedonia, as well as the proceeds of the revenues collected by the Public Debt, such as the salt and tobacco monopolies, the stamp duties, spirit duties, fisheries and silk duties. These revenues, being collected by the Public Debt—a European Administration—might be regarded as the best revenues in Turkey. Our financial Delegate informed us on page 4 of his Report just published, that for the financial year 1904–5 the Macedonian Customs duties amounted to £245,000, and the other revenues not included in the Budget to £218,000. Further, on the expenditure side of the account, a sum of £322,000 was included on account of kilometric guarantees for railways; and it was obvious that such guarantees for railways should be met by general Turkish revenues, as the principal function of the railway was to transport troops to and from Constantinople and other parts of the Empire. He made the sum the other evening and showed that if the revenues he had mentioned were to figure in the Budget, and the kilo-metric guarantees were eliminated from it, the Macedonian deficit would, in spite of the enormous military expenditure, amounting to double the civil, show a surplus instead of a deficit. It was perfectly true that the revenues which he had mentioned had already been mortgaged by the Turkish Government; but it was also true that the British Delegate on the Ottoman Public Debt

  1713
  had stated in the Blue Book recently-published that there would soon he a surplus of the debt-collected revenues, available for the Government without any mortgage, of from £450,000 to £500,000 a year. Inasmuch as the Macedonian portion of these revenues had been mortgaged for Imperial purposes, it was surely only reasonable that any surplus on the Imperial account should be devoted to Macedonia. He could not for the life of him understand why the British Government did not originally insist that this free surplus should go to Macedonia before any call could be made on the increased Customs duties. As matters now stood, there was a real danger that the only result of our consent to the increase in the Customs duties would be that the Germans would get hold of this £500,000 a year with which to build the Bagdad Railway; and so out of the miseries of Macedonia and the remissness of European diplomatists would grow, as the only tangible result, a great strategic railway across Asia, menacing the interests both of this country and of France, and further robbing the impoverished Turkish taxpayer. The security which we had got against such an outcome of our benevolence towards Turkey in the matter of the Customs duties was the provision inserted by the Tight hon. Gentleman himself that our consent to the increase was only for a period of seven years and might be withdrawn under certain eventualities at any time during those seven years. That was an admirable provision and it might save the whole situation. But this would depend upon whether the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to insist that the provision should not remain a dead letter. If he did so insist, it would, he hoped be his own good fortune seven years hence to congratulate him upon the permanent success of his efforts in the Customs duties, because we should then be face to face not only with a reformed Macedonia, but with the application, in the best interests of the people of Turkey, of the considerable sums set free by our consent to the increase. For this reason he earnestly hoped that the hon. Baronet would inform the Turkish Government that after the seven years had elapsed we should certainly expect
  1714
  any balance of the debt-collected revenues becoming free in the interval, to be devoted to Macedonia in relief of or in substitution for the increased Customs duties. There was one statement of the right hon. Gentleman in connection with Macedonia which he had made more than once, and which, he was sure, did not meet with the approval of the majority of Members of this House, and which had certainly not been well received in the country. It was that when the other Powers showed a disposition to put forward reforms, there would be no more warm supporter than ourselves. When they spoke of the other Powers taking the initiative they were practically leaving the initiative to Austria and Russia. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean hit the nail on the head when he said in the debate the other night that in Macedonia we were pursuing an Austrian policy. If that had been true in the past, it certainly ought not to be true in the future. After all, this country was the prime mover in restoring these provinces to the limited sovereignty of the Sultan, at the Congress of Berlin; and quite recently we had consented to this increase in the Customs on account of Macedonia, and our import trade with Turkey, on which these duties were to be levied, was at present double that of any of the other Powers with Turkey. We had, therefore, a special right to take the initiative in securing the objects for which the increase in the Customs was granted. The British Ambassador at Constantinople, indeed, estimated that our import trade was nearly equal to that of all other countries. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman might say that in certain eventualities it might be necessary for the Powers to face intervention in a military sense in Macedonia, and that the task of restoring order might have to be entrusted to Austria and Russia. But such a course would neither be necessary, nor would it be a natural course. For the purposes of the maintenance of order, Macedonia had already been divided up between the Powers into five areas; in each of which a particular Power had officers of its own nationality stationed for the organisation of the gendarmerie. It would be easy to extend this principle in certain eventualities. In taking the initiative for the

  1715
  introduction of reforms into Macedonia, England would be following her traditional policy towards Turkey. That policy, so far as modern times were concerned, might be said to date from the great Embassy of Stratford Canning. It culminated in the scheme of reform for the Asiatic Provinces which was the outcome of the Treaties of Berlin and the Cyprus Convention. Mr. Goschen was sent to Constantinople to administer the scheme, but it was put an end to at the instigation of Prince Bismarck, who was probably acting on behalf of Russia, and perhaps also of Austria. If any hon. Member would turn to Lord Granville's despatch to Mr. Goschen of 10th February 1881, he would see the authority for what he had stated. While it had always been the object of Great Britain to show herself the true friend of the populations of the Turkish Empire, and to do her utmost to strengthen whatever elements of progress they possessed, even a cursory perusal of the history of modern times would show that Russia and Austria, to put it at the lowest, had not been animated by a similar desire, but had preferred to wait with shut eyes and folded arms for the pear to fall into their mouths. The right hon. Gentleman said that all that could be done in regard to Macedonia must be done by diplomatic action in Constantinople. He could therefore see no possible advantage in indulging in vilification of Turkey. If they had got to effect these reforms, it must be obviously unwise to throw reflections on those people with whom they must carry on the reforms. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would go forward boldly in this matter, combating tendencies, in whatever quarter they might exist, to delay or frustrate reform. In doing so he was sure that he would have the enthusiastic support not only of this House but of the country.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,)said that really nothing he had said on previous occasions had excluded the prospect of a revision of some of the Denshawi sentences, and to dwell upon the controversial aspect of the question again would have no other effect than
  1716
  apparently to impair the prospect of revision. As to the appointment of the special tribunal, Lord Cromer had pointed out that certain reforms were desirable; but difficulty had been found in introducing them. Until those reforms had been introduced the special tribunal would not be called into existence. As to the question whether the integrity of Siam was in danger, the treaty between Siam and France was as much voluntary on one side as on the other, and Siam was the best judge of how far the treaty was compatible with her own interests. It contained an exchange of territory, but it also contained certain advantages to Siam in regard to jurisdiction. There was nothing in the treaty at all inconsistent with the spirit of the agreement between France and England in regard to Siam. As to Macedonia, he could not contribute to the improvement of the state of affairs in that country by making another long speech. At the present time nothing could be gained by another long statement of policy. The hon. Member for Ripon had asked that in the Blue-book the outrages should be tabulated, so that one period could be compared with another. Of course the Blue-books should be drawn up in such a way as to enable hon. Members to judge of the condition of affairs; and he admitted that they should contain information as to the actual form of the outrages and the causes of their origin. There was no objection to giving information with regard to the actual sources of revenue. He knew that reforms were under the constant consideration of the Austrian and Russian Governments with the view of producing a scheme. The hon. Member for Ripon had said that the deficit in the Macedonian Budget was an apparent and not a real deficit. It was real in this sense, that there was no money. What was meant by deficit was that there was a deficiency in money available for purposes of administration in Macedonia. The deficit was so real that there was a danger of reform breaking down altogether, and unless the increase in the Customs Duties had come to the rescue, there would have been very great difficulty in carrying on the reforms even to the point at which they had now reached. With regard to the

  1717
  general question, he had never said or intended to imply that we in any way abnegated our right to initiate proposals with regard to Macedonian reform. Lord Lansdowne had said that he was quite willing that reforms should be put forward by other Powers which were likely to secure unanimous acceptance. We were prepared, if we saw our way, to initiate reforms, but if other Powers were ready to put forward reforms which were likely to be accepted, then we should be prepared to support them. Acting in the concert, we should use our influence, and we had been as active as possible in using our influence, to promote the cause of Macedonian reform. On the question of Persia, the Government recognised that the trade interest was one of the elements of importance, and if an agreement with the Russian Government was concluded, it would be laid before the House. In that event he hoped such an agreement would be looked upon as a whole, and from the point of view of the very large interests involved in that part of Asia. But while the negotiations were in progress he could not make statements about them in public.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANventured to make an appeal to the House to allow the discussion to be brought to a close because, as the House knew, there was another discussion which had to take place that night. They had had a long discussion ranging, as had been said, from Monmouthshire to Macedonia, and he thought the House would be well advised to allow this discussion now to close.
  MR. BRACEsaid that naturally he was in distinct I sympathy with the appeal of the Prime Minister, as he was in the House till six o'clock that morning and had been busily engaged all day. He hoped the House therefore would I realise that he was earnest in pressing the question to which he wished to call the attention of the Colonial Secretary, namely, the serious position of 1,000 white men in South Africa who were starving there. They wanted the Government to repatriate these miners whom the Chamber of Mines were starving out. If the Government could not more
  1718
  quickly repatriate the Chinese they should bring home these white men. This appeal had been previously addressed to the Colonial Secretary. The men asked for the immediate repatriation not I of the Chinese but of themselves, and when it was realised that the mineowners had set themselves to work to drive out all the white labour in South Africa it would be seen that this was a matter which commanded the serious attention of the Government and the House. There could be no doubt about the intention of the mineowners, and they were pursuing their policy with great determination. Up to the election they were quite careful to conceal their hands, but immediately the result of the election was known they had no hesitation in coming before the Commission and stating that it was their intention to clear out white labour from the mines of South Africa as far as was practicable. In consequence of this policy a thousand men could not get employment or money and they were starving. He therefore thought the Government should bring them back. The Government of the Commonwealth of Australia had just repatriated 1,400 Australians from South Africa, having chartered steamers to bring them home at a cost of £6 a head, the men undertaking to repay this money when able to do so. It was an apalling condition of things that there were white men in South Africa who could not get work because they were not allowed to do it by the mineowners. The miners of this country had cabled £1,000 to them and he therefore had no hesitation in asking the Government to give this case their immediate and generous consideration.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N.W.)said the hon. Member who had just spoken had certainly a right to raise this question, and the House would appreciate his response to the appeal of the Prime Minister in the compression which he had exercised in his remarks. He would follow the hon. Member's example in that respect. He must point out that the conditions of the labour dispute on the Rand were more complicated than the

  1719
  conditions of any other labour dispute that had ever to his knowledge been raised. There was the question of the position of the different races, and the position of a new Government, which had only shortly before been called upon to assume the control of affairs in the country. Then, they had to consider the relation which that Government held to the Government of this country; and, above all, there was the complication of the Chinese labour problem, which was intimately interwoven with all these questions. The hon. Gentleman said, in effect, that Chinese labour had been disadvantageous to white labour in South Africa, and he was bound to say that his experience day after day was that the employment of the Chinese tended to reduce the labour of men of our own nationality. The strike which had taken place was now ended, but he was well aware that a portion of those who went out on strike had not been taken back. That was due to the fact that many Dutchmen who were anxious to get work in the mines had succeeded in getting it. The Australian Government had removed from South Africa a certain number of those subjects of their country who had found themselves stranded, and they were in correspondence with the High Commissioner as to the practical effect of any intervention on their part. There were no precedents for the Government of this country intervening to bring home individuals from our Colonies who had suffered from local dislocation of industry, and he could not permit himself to make any promise on the subject. But although these men were drawn into South Africa by the prospect of huge wages, he would be far from saying that their condition was one which was of no concern to us. He thought the point was emphasised by the action of the Australian Government, and very careful inquiry would be made, and if they found it necessary they would have to make an appeal to the House for sympathy in this matter.
  MR. W. E. HARVEYsaid he desired to call attention to the treatment of jurymen at assizes in his county. The fact was that those who were liable to serve were irregularly
  1720
  summoned, so that a man with business concerns to attend to was frequently called upon to be a jurymen out of his regular turn. There seemed to be no regular rotation of calls, no regular system of summoning the juries. And then with regard to the refreshments allowed when the jurymen were locked up to consider their verdict, the arrangements were a scandal to the nation. A jurymen might be a man of business, and he attended the court to serve the nation at the sacrifice of his own time and pocket, and what was the refreshment provied? Bread and cheese and beer for lunch if they should happen to be locked up considering their verdict. It might be that some of the jury were under the doctor's orders, and that such a diet, with cheese included, was not suitable, and the result was that they had to go all day perhaps without food. Yet these men were doing the work of the nation without reward and without pay; indeed, they had to pay their own expenses, which was in his opnion a disgrace to the country. What he asked was that the officer in charge of the jury list, the officer who served the summonses, should, as he was in duty bound, secure equality of service by careful rotation in securing the attendance of jurymen.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that he doubted whether the matter which the hon. Member was raising was not one which required to be dealt with by legislation. If he looked at the Juries Act of 1870, he would find that by Clause 23 the jury were to procure their own refreshments at their own expense. If the hon. Member was anxious that the expense should be put on somebody else, that would probably have to be done by legislation, and the matter was not relevant to a discussion on the Appropriation Bill.
  MR. W. E. HARVEYsaid the expenses for refreshments were put under that heading in the Appropriation Bill, and the amount was £22,000. He had seen one of the law authorities of the Crown, who had assured him that he was fully justified in bringing the matter forward on that occasion.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid there seemed to be some doubt in the matter, and he would not stop the hon. Member; he dared say that the hon. Gentleman could make a good case.
  MR. W. E. HARVEYsubmitted that the law officers of the Crown should make some inquiry into the manner in which jurymen were treated in regard to the rooms which were set apart for their accommodation. At assizes jurymen were frequently packed into rooms ill-ventilated and cramped for space. Indeed there was not sufficient space in which to conduct their business properly; the conditions were unhealthy, and there was not as much space as was allowed to a school child. He repeated that it was a scandal to the country that jurymen, who ought to be paid for their services, should be treated in this way. They ought to be not only paid for their services but paid their expenses for travelling and other expenses occasioned to them by the fact of their being summoned to serve. If the work of the jurymen was not valuable to the country he did not know what was. In regard to the county which he represented he had before him the whole of the names of the jury in a case—the foreman and the others. The foreman on their behalf complained to Lord Coleridge of the way in which they had been treated, having been locked up without proper refreshment. Lord Coleridge sympathised with them, and expressed the hope that something would be done. He appealed to the law officers of the Crown to take this matter into consideration in order that some reform might be brought about.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bid read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tomorrow.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (REGULATIONS AS TO FOOD) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1:—
  MR. GRETTON MR. GRETTON moved an Amendment I which would have the effect of restricting
  1722
  the operation of the Bill to imported foods. He said that he moved this Amendment on behalf of his hon. and learned friend the Member for Kingston. Not only did the Bill empower the officers of the Local Government Board to supervise the importation of food, but also the preparation, the storage, and the distribution of food. That power would override the very ample and complete powers already conferred by the Public Health Act, 1875, and also the further powers given in the Act of 1896. The effect of the proposals would be to put a great expense on the Exchequer, and at the same time to override the administration of the great local bodies which had been set up. He was not aware that any serious complaint had been made against the administration of the public bodies in respect of the Food and Drugs Acts, the operation of which had been attended with good results. The effect of leaving out the words which he now moved to omit would be to give the Local Government Board full power, which the Committee would agree the Department ought to have, over the importation of all food supplies from abroad. No doubt there was a great scandal in connection with some of the foodstuffs imported from other countries, and they were all agreed that further powers should be given to the Government to protect the people of the United Kingdom against the distribution of unwholesome food which was sent here in considerable quantities. A further Amendment which he proposed to insert at a later stage was to put in the Bill after the word "consumption" the following words," or from the storage or distribution of any such articles after importation." The combined effect of these Amendments would be that the Local Government Board would be able to exercise full powers, which no local authority could so effectively exercise, over the importation and distribution and storage of foreign food stuffs, but the powers of the local authorities would be left untouched. As a consequence, there would be no danger of incurring the expense of a new army of inspecting officers which, as the Bill stood, might be entailed to the country.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 9, to leave out the words 'preparation, storage, and distribution.'"—(Mr. Gretton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  LORD BALCARRESsaid he wished to take that opportunity of asking the President of the Local Government Board on this rather comprehensive measure to make a statement as to his general policy in regard to the Bill. He was taking, in the first clause, very extensive powers, but if the right hon. Gentleman assured them that these powers, widely drawn as they were, were necessary for the preservation of the public health, then his case was a strong one. But he (Lord Balcarres) intended to submit to the right hon. Gentleman in a few minutes an argument in addition to that advanced by his hon. friend which really made him rather alarmed as to the extent to which the right hon. Gentleman was carrying his Bill. The Bill was to enable regulations to be made for the prevention of danger arising to the public health from the importation, preparation, storage, and distribution of articles of food, other than drugs or water. He did not know why the right hon. Gentleman excluded drugs and water, both of which might be extremely deleterious to health. The right hon. Gentleman first took power to deal with the importation, preparation, storage, and distribution of articles of food. That might be a very desirable thing, but in the hands of a Minister who took extreme views it might be a very dangerous power to be vested in any Government Department. With regard to the preparation of food, it seemed possible, on the face of the Bill, that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to go into any kitchen in the country and inspect the way in which food was being cooked. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to do that? The right hon. Gentleman could also deal with the storage of food. He could go into any larder, or cellar, or shop, and he could make rules in regard to the storage of food in such places. Then there was the power which the right hon. Gentleman took with regard to the distribution of
  1724
  articles of food, under which he could make rules as regarded the packing up of a box of chocolates which he (Lord Balcarres) sent from there to his own door. He had a very great respect for the Local Government Board, and he did not believe that the right hon. Gentleman meant in any way to use the powers which would be conferred on him by this measure in an unreasonable way, but, at the same time, he thought that those powers were very extensive. Assuming that it was really necessary to take such wide powers, the right hon. Gentleman said that they were guarded by the words, "the prevention of danger arising to public health."
  Of course that would be the explanation that any officer acting under the Statute would give when saying that he wished to see how a person was doing his cooking, or the way he was keeping his food, or how he was sending articles of food through the post, or, again, how he was keeping his beer or wine in his cellar. He supported in a formal manner this particular Amendment in order to ascertain whether the Committee might have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he really did not mean to enforce all the powers he was asking Parliament to give him. Personally, he did not like powers which were not limited in the Statute, but were only limited by the good word or good faith of the particular Minister concerned. After all, Ministers changed, and the next Minister in charge of the Local Government Board might take a different view from the Minister who preceded him. He submitted to the right hon. Gentleman that the powers taken in the Bill were really gigantic, and that he owed to the Committee, and also to the country at large, some assurance that, at all events so far as he was concerned, he would adhere strictly to the object described in his speech the other night, and would not carry out what would be a serious infringement of private rights where no danger to public health was involved.
  MR. IDRISsaid he was fully convinced of the necessity of conferring on the Local Government Board very wide powers in

  1725
  regard to this matter. He had been about forty years actively engaged in the manufacture of articles of food and drink. During that period he had often wondered how anybody who knew anything at all of the facts of the case could be satisfied with the inspection of factories and of places where the preparation of food now went on. The sanitary inspection at present carried out was mainly directed to the protection of the people engaged in the work of the manufactories and not to the protection of the health of the people who were to consume the articles produced. He had had to go through many manufactories, and having regard to the condition of these places he was quite sure that no hon. Member would ever think of consuming the articles which were made in such surroundings—surroundings which in some cases were as bad as could possibly be imagined. For example, he had seen the manufacture of things intended for human consumption carried on in places where there was a stable in one corner and a dust-bin with cradling worms in the middle. It required some knowledge of the effects of these evil surroundings on articles of food to realise the gravity of permitting such conditions to prevail. The moulds were simply harbourers of germs, and even the sterilisation required by cleanliness was not carried out. The filling machines were covered with a mass of dirt and a gelatinous deposit which made them breeding grounds for micro-organisms of the worst description. For these and other reasons he hoped that the powers taken under the Bill would be as wide as possible. Until the proposed regulations were made and put into efficient working order it was impossible that many of the objectionable things which now went on in connection with the preparation of food should be put an end to. The careful manufacturer had no fear of these regulations, but, on the other hand, he would welcome them as an assistance to him in carrying out the methods he had at heart, and because they would make other men who were carrying on a similar business conform to the same methods as himself. The careful manufacturer would also welcome the rules and regulations because he was anxious to impress on those whom he employed the necessity
  1726
  of these precautions. The need for such precautions was constantly present to the minds of those engaged in the preparation of food stuffs, and he hoped that this very desirable Bill would pass with the fullest powers possible embodied in it. He also hoped that hon. Members would take care to criticise the regulations when they were laid on the Table, and he did not think any Member would find after going into the matter that the restrictions could possibly be made too wide.
  MR. BOWLESsaid he did not desire in any way to delay the progress of the Bill, because, having listened the other night to the President of the Board of Trade's description of the premises in which the preparation of food stuffs was very often carried on and at which the regulations were aimed, he was bound to say he did not think anybody could doubt that such steps as were really necessary to prevent a continuance of the present state of things should be taken. But he did not really understand the form of the Bill. If hon. Members would look at the Bill they would see that it ran in this way: "The power of making regulations under the Public Health Act, 1896, and the enactments mentioned in that Act" should include certain other powers relating to measures to be taken for safeguarding the public health. He had taken the trouble to go back through those Acts, and he found that the Public Health Act, 1896, referred one back to the Public Health Act, 1875. The section in the Act of 1875 which, unless he had entirely misread this Bill, would give to the right hon. Gentleman his powers, was Section 134 of that Act, which applied merely to extraordinary and exceptional cases. Under that Act the powers of the Local Government Board were given to them not at any time according to the discretion of the right hon. Gentleman but whenever any part of England appeared to be threatened with or was affected by a formidable epidemic or endemic or infectious disease. It seemed to him that what the right hon. Gentleman wanted, and appeared to think he was getting in this Bill, was a free hand to do what he pleased. The

  1727
  hon. Member who had just spoken desired that the right hon. Gentleman should have this free hand, but he (Mr. Bowles) saw that there were dangers, not perhaps in giving these powers to the right hon. Gentleman individually, but in giving an absolutely free hand in matters of this kind to any Government Department. What he ventured to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman was that owing to the way the Bill had been drawn there was a limit placed on his powers, which were only to be exercised where he could show that the whole or some part of the country was either in the grip of or imminently threatened by a formidable epidemic. If that was so it meant a considerable limitation of the powers which the right hon. Gentleman thought he was going to take. He did not see where was the need of any reference to the Public Health Act, 1896.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member was speaking about the whole drafting of the Bill, and that was not in order. The question was whether the Committee should leave out the words mentioned in the Amendment.
  MR. BOWLESsaid he thought it was intended that on this Amendment the right hon. Gentleman should make a general statement, and it had occurred to him that if that statement were made at this stage it might save time later on.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that as he understood it the general statement referred to by the noble Lord was as to how the right hon. Gentleman meant to carry out the Act in regard to the importation, preparation, storage, and distribution of food, which would distinctly be in order on that Amendment.
  MR. BOWLESsaid in that case he would not proceed further.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he did not rise to address the Committee out of a feeling of opposition to the Bill, but because in connection with this Amendment he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman a few questions. He had a feeling, based on some experience, that if this
  1728
  Bill became law it would not in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman run any risk of becoming a dead letter. Nevertheless, what he was anxious to ascertain was what organisation he proposed to create in order to carry the Act into effect so that all sorts of articles of food and drink would be brought under its purview. In connection with the matter of administration he asked what the new staff would number, and whether it would be able to put the Act in force the moment it became law. He might be very ignorant, but there were two words in the clause which he thought required some explanation. From what he had been able to gather when the Bill was last before the House there was no statement made by the Minister in charge to show whether soda water was included in the Bill. They all knew that was an article of human consumption. These gaseous waters had a very great vogue, and were very often distributed under very bad conditions. Some of them also had alcoholic contents which they ought not to have. Personally, he believed there was no more unwholesome thing than soda water, and he wanted it clearly established whether the right hon. Gentleman, if that Bill became law, would have the control of these waters and would in some war be responsible for inducing the public to consume less of them, thereby doing a great act towards the improvement of the general health of the community.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,)said the noble Lord (Lord Balcarres) had appealed to him to make a general statement as to what was to be the policy and the conditions of administering the Bill. Perhaps that would be convenient and he trusted it might shorten discussion if he said a word or two. First, let him say with regard to these regulations that the Government proposed they should be laid before Parliament, that they should be issued to the public under the notice of proposals to make rules which was embodied under the Rules Publication Act of 1893, and that they should be published in the London Gazette at least forty days before they came into force. Any public body would be able to

  1729
  obtain a copy of these rules when they were made, and the authority making the rule must under the Act consider any representations or suggestions sent to them before they issued the rules. The effect of that would be that any hardship apprehended would, he was sure, be dealt with by the Local Government Board in precisely the same way as they had always dealt with matters of this kind when representations were made to them with respect to regulations by persons or interests supposed to be affected. He passed from what the Board intended to do in regard to the regulations to the necessity for the regulations. The noble Lord asked him what would be done in regard to mineral waters, and the question had been repeated by the hon. Member for Hoxton. After the statement which had been made by the representative, as he thought he might be called, of the Mineral Water Trade Association in support of the Bill, it was obvious that in the judgment of these people the regulations could be successfully entrusted to the Local Government Board. The hon. Member for Hoxton, who pursued the same argument, had very good reason for so doing, because in the East End of London, according to a report which he had in his hand, the conditions under which mineral waters of a certain class were made were such, he could assure the House without troubling them with details of the noisome and filthy surroundings, that if they listened only for a sentence or two, they would fully agree with him that soda water and mineral waters should be included in the Bill—
  "During my recent inspection I only found one distinctly dirty collection of bottles. They belonged to a foreign immigrant in Stepney who carried on the business of bottling in quite a small yard about 11 feet by 12 feet, in which was situated a water closet; the yard was not tidily kept, and the water used was exposed to contamination by sooty particles and dust. Several of the bottles, filled three days previously, were tinted, and two of them contained many tine filaments, specks, and masses which looked like colonies of mould."
  He could assure the House that when some Stepney customers complained of water being dirty it must be very dirty indeed.
  LORD BALCARRES: Why does not that come under the Factory Act?
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that in such cases a person rented two rooms and hired next door, say, a back yard for a store. There was no machinery or workshop, and factory and workshop regulations did not apply. The local sanitary inspector made conditions with regard to the sanitary arrangements for the use of the inmates, but neither the factory nor the workshop inspector nor the sanitary inspector had got any further power. What the Local Government Board wanted to do was to supplement the powers of the local medical officer of health so that he might see that the yard was paved, that the water was clean, that the conditions under which the industry was carried on were not fraught with danger, both to the people engaged in the industry and then to the consumers of the products. The noble Lord went on to ask whether under the Bill it would not be possible for the medical officer or the inspector to go into any kitchen. Might he ask for one moment the attention of the House as to the need for someone going into kitchens of that kind? The passage referred to one of the best local authorities in the country. Ought not someone to go into this kitchen?
  "The most serious defect in this system is that mud and filth is allowed to fall into the kitchens, but this has been obviated in many cases by the provision of movable trays placed immediately beneath the openings."
  So long as the water closet from a mechanical point of view satisfied the sanitary inspector under the Public Health Act, he could do nothing in regard to preventing the storage, preparation, and distribution of food. He took another case—
  "Again, in a large number of cases the water-closet accommodation was in a very defective condition; in thirty-five cases the water-closet either opened or communicated directly with the kitchen, and in nine others they were actually within the kitchen itself, without either light or ventilation."
  And, again, with respect to other rooms—
  "For instance, butter is made in rooms used as sleeping rooms, cheese is prepared in ill-ventilated cellars, or in close proximity to a water-closet, and while it is recognised that the milk churn which contains milk must be kept scrupulously clean, no importance is attached to the appearance of the churn in which cream for butter-making and sour milk are placed."
  Some of the choicest morsels and the most expensive classes of food and drink

  1731
  for the West End were prepared under conditions absolutely intolerable and abominable. He was asked by the hon. Member for Hoxton what organisation was going to be resorted to for the carrying out of those regulations. They did not intend to create any new organisation, but to act through medical officers of heath, who would be desired to enforce the regulations of the new Act.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYasked if the staff at the disposal of the authorities would be adequate in numbers and otherwise to carry out that highly important matter, which was essential in the health of the country.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he thought the present staff would be able to do the new work concurrently with their present sanitary work. Under the Bill they would in effect be able to kill two birds with one stone. The hon. Member for Norwood had asked whether the section of the Act, which he quite innocently misquoted, applied. It did not; he quoted the wrong section. The noble Lord could rest assured that the Local Government Board under these regulations were not going to irritate people who carried on their business decently and in order. The Board did not intend to use the regulations as a means of harassing any trader or manufacturer legitimately carrying out his business in an elementarily decent way. But he thought that in view of the enormous amount of foodstuffs of all kinds concerned, liquid, tinned, canned, and raw, or partly cooked or preserved, and after the scandals that had been revealed during the last twelve months, the Local Government Board would not be doing its duty to the country unless it sought to afford the protection of the Bill. He appealed to the House, and he gave them the assurance that the Board would only maintain the interests of public sanitation and public health, and would not interfere with any undertaking carrying on the preparation, storage, or distribution of food in a proper way. He appealed to the Member for Rutland, who asked if the Government could accept the Amendment which he moved, and upon which he (Mr. Burns) had been invited to make that general statement.
  1732
  Might he say that it was impossible for them to accept the Amendment? If they accepted the Amendment the effect of it would be to leave out one of the important points of the Bill. They could not confine the Bill to imported food. The hon. Member for Hoxton would be one of the first to admit that if he had to choose between food from abroad properly tinned and prepared or some of the tinned foods prepared in some of the East End places to which he had referred, he would wish to have the imported food, rather than imported food mixed with home food in the places he had described. If their powers over food at home were limited and they were confined merely to imported food, they would destroy the whole effectiveness of the Bill.
  MR. FORSTERsaid the speech which the President of the Board of Trade had just delivered made it perfectly clear that this was a Bill of great importance. In his interesting speech the right hon. Gentleman had dealt with an aspect of the question which they all admitted to be vital to the health and well-being of the people, but he had not touched on the objections of the noble Lord who sat beside him. The President of the Local Government Board had dealt at length, with great emphasis and with great justification, with the necessity for exercising supervision over the preparation and storing of food under certain circumstances, but he had not addressed a single word to the objections which had been raised by his noble friend to certain provisions of the Bill. The Bill would give the Local Government Board power to exercise supervision over storage of food and drink in private houses. The right hon. Gentleman might say they were raising captious criticism to the principles contained in the Bill, and that the Local Government Board had no intention of invading the privacy of private houses. That might be so, and they might be satisfied to trust to the good judgment of the present occupant of the Presidency of the Local Government Board, but they had no security that any future occupant of that office would entertain the same enlightened view. It would be an intolerable thing

  1733
  if, under the provisions of this Bill, it should be competent for the Local Government Board inspectors to invade private houses and inspect the conditions under which articles of food and drink were stored. He had a suggestion to put forward which would perhaps avoid that danger which they felt the Bill involved. The proposal was that the Local Government Board should have the power to make regulations for the prevention of danger arising to public health from the importation, preparation, storage, and distribution of articles of food or drink intended for human consumption. He would suggest that after the word "intended" they should insert the words "to be sold," and it would then read "intended to be sold for human consumption." That would leave the Local Government Board the power of inspecting such kitchens as the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned, in which the conditions as described were perfectly horrible and quite repugnant to the feelings of anybody who cared for human health. If the right hon. Gentleman would accept the words he had suggested private kitchens belonging to dwelling-houses would be freed from inspection. He did not think the country would tolerate for one moment that it should be in the power of Local Government Board inspectors to invade private dwelling-houses. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider that point, and do something to meet it. In dealing with the regulations which it was proposed the Local Government Board should draw up, there was a stipulation that the said regulations should be laid on the Table of the House for forty days before they became operative in order that those who disagreed with them might have an opportunity of making plain their objections. Could the President of the Local Government Board give an undertaking that the House should have an opportunity of discussing them if it wanted to, for much would depend on the time of the session at which they were laid on the Table.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid he thought they ought to leave the question as to the regulations on that clause. It would be better on the new clause.
  MR. FORSTERbowed to the Chairman's ruling. He wished to urge, however, that the right hon. Gentleman should accept the words he had suggested which would limit the inspection to articles of food imported, prepared, stored, or distributed for sale, and would not include the inspection of private houses.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he would be happy to accept not only the spirit, but the substance of the hon. Gentleman's proposals, provided the form should be "intended for sale for human consumption." That met the whole of the points that had been raised. It was not intended to invade domestic kitchens; it was only intended to deal with food for sale for human consumption.
  MR. MOOREsaid he welcomed the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken. He had an Amendment on the Paper, but in view of the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken, he would not move it.
  DR. COOPERsaid that as one who had helped in public health administration for several years, he wished to point out to the House that public authorities had already ample powers of inspecting I any kitchen of any restaurant, hotel, or eating-house at any time they wished to. He was the Chairman of the Committee which drew up the Report which had been read by the President of the Local Government Board. The medical officer of health for the City of London had inspected the kitchen of every restaurant, cook shop, or eating-house in his boundaries, and the medical officer of health for Westminster had done the same thing. He did not say the regulations were not required, for anybody who had read the reports of the inspectors would agree that they were. He had read the reports of medical officers of health as to the condition of the kitchens of some of the hotels in London and would not care to have his meals there, after reading those reports. What he wished to point out, however, was that in the last few years the London County Council

  1735
  had been advised that the boroughs had the power to inspect those places and some of them had exercised it. The difficulty was not in the making of regulations, but in the carrying of them out. It was no good for the President of the Local Government Board to make regulations if the present staff of local authorities was incapable of carrying them out. That was the one great difficulty throughout the whole of England. The President of the Local Government Board had spoken as though the regulations were only to apply to London and to the large corporations, but that was not so; they were to run throughout the whole of England. He noticed that the right hon. Gentleman had particularly mentioned meat and milk. How were they to be inspected? What was the machinery by which all the meat and milk could be examined in the country as well as in London? Everybody knew what it would mean to take the meat coming into London and have it properly examined. For proper inspection meat ought to be inspected at the time of slaughter. It would mean an enormous expense, but he would not shrink from that, for he believed that it ought to be done. But in the country there was no machinery at all for doing this work. Outside London no sanitary inspector need pass an examination, and while all large corporations would see that their inspectors did pass examinations, it was not compulsory. In the country sanitary inspectors might be paid the most miserable wages. In some cases they were only paid £10, £15, or £50 a year. Then medical officers of health were often paid small salaries and had not to devote their whole time to the duties of their office, but had to look to private practice to get their living. Under these circumstances how could all these large and powerful regulations be carried out? The real thing was to provide the machinery. The President of the Local Government Board had failed in that, for he had brought in a Bill to make regulations, but had brought in no Bill to establish the necessary machinery.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that that question clearly did not arise on the Amendment. The Amendment was to leave out
  1736
  certain words and the hon. Member was not addressing himself to those words.
  DR. COOPERsaid the examining of these stores of food could not be carried out on the existing machinery.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member had been making that statement, and as a statement it was in order; but he could not go into the question of changes of machinery at this point.
  DR. COOPERsaid the issue was that that Bill entitled the local authority to carry out the inspection of food, but did not set up any machinery by which the regulations could be effectually administered.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member must bear in mind that they were not dealing with the question of machinery, but with the regulations which were to be made.
  MR. GRETTONsaid he was in no sense in disagreement with the desire—the very proper desire—of the President of the Local Government Board to strengthen the inspection of the preparation, storage, and distribution of food in this country. The only point he wished to make, and which he had tried to explain, was that the Committee should have on this Amendment an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman, which he had already partly given, that he intended to act through the local authorities in whom the powers of the Public Health Act and the Food and Drugs Act were already vested. If the right hon. Gentleman now gave him some assurance that words carrying out his expressed intention that these powers would be exercised through the present authorities would be inserted in the Bill at a later stage he would not press the Amendment any further. He was quite in agreement with everything that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, and if he had that assurance he would withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that he could give the assurance unhesitatingly. The Bill did not give the Local Government Board power to create any authority and

  1737
  they intended to act only through the existing authorities.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid that he thought that after what had passed his hon. friend would do well to withdraw the Amendment. He must say, however, that personally he would rather be inspected by the Local Government Board than by anybody else. He had thought all along that the Local Government Board were going to carry out these duties, but he now understood that the importation, preparation, storage, and distribution of food were to be looked after by local men. He did not wish, however, to press that point now, but would merely content himself with advising his hon. friend to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that while thanking the right hon. Gentleman for what he had said with reference to the arguments which had fallen from his hon. friends, he would like to urge him to consider very seriously whether the existing staff of the local authorities could undertake this work. While paying every tribute to the activity and energy of the local authorities, such experience as he had had in London made him doubtful as to whether these duties would not be better carried out by the Local Government Board. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he thought the arrangements which he contemplated would make the working of the Bill efficient. He (Mr. Hay) had grave doubts on that subject. He desired to aid in making the provisions of the Bill efficient, and he therefore appealed to the right hon. Gentleman again seriously to consider whether he could not find it possible to take further steps to strengthen this inspection.
  MR. GRETTONsaid that after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 10, after the word 'for,' to insert the words 'sale for.'"—(Mr. John Burns.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  DR. COOPER DR. COOPER moved to leave out the words "examination and." He said that he moved the Amendment not so much out of opposition to the Bill as with the object of trying to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman what the word "examination" meant. He did this in the interests of his constituency. His borough had in it the Foreign Produce Exchange. Also large cold storage depots, three or four miles of wharves, and a large number of the wharves were crammed full of the goods which the right hon. Gentleman sought powers to examine. What he wanted to know was on what authority would the cost of the examination fall. The articles to be examined were not intended for Bermondsey and not even for London, because the produce was distributed throughout the whole of the country. On whom, therefore, would the cost of the examination fall? The right hon. Gentleman rather appeared to indicate that the cost would fall upon the local authority, but, if that were the case, it would cast a very unfair burden upon one borough in London, as it might have to bear the expense of examining articles of food intended for distribution over the greater part of the country. Under those circumstances he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to consider whether a district so affected should not receive some contribution from a central fund, or whether the examination should not be made by the central authority for London or by the Local Government Board.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid the question of a grant from a central fund did not arise under the Bill. It would require a Resolution, and therefore the reference to it was not in order.
  DR. COOPERsaid that he only suggested the matter for the right hon. Gentleman's consideration. He must ask the right hon. Gentleman what the examination really meant. If it meant that the inspector was to enter upon the wharves and to open all the cases of produce it meant a very serious thing. If it did not mean that, how were the inspectors to obtain information as to the

  1739
  defective articles of food which were very often contained in the cases. Nearly all the boats bringing Ostend rabbits, fresh-killed sheep and pigs, as well as tinned produce, came up to the wharves in his district. Was the cost of the examination in all those cases to be charged to the local authority? He had no desire to press his Amendment, but he would be perfectly satisfied to receive an answer from the right hon. Gentleman.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 13, to leave out the words, 'examination or.'"—(Dr. Cooper.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid in answer to the hon. Member, that the Port Sanitary Authority of London, plus the medical officer and the sanitary officers of the hon. Member's own parish, now carried out fairly well the duties entrusted to them. They did the work so well, in fact, that last year between the medical officer of the hon. Member's own parish and the Port Sanitary Authority's medical officer some 2,600 tons of unsound meat was condemned. More meat than that would have been condemned had they had the power which this Bill through the regulations would give them. He had no doubt that if this Bill was passed and regulations were made, the medical officer of the district which the hon. Member represented and of the Port Sanitary Authority would be able to have a stronger grip over the importation of unsound meat than they now had. The hon. Member had raised the question of cost. On that subject might he say that the whole of London contributed to some of the local expenses, while Imperial taxation bore the cost of half the salaries of some of the medical officers. In regard to London, the county council, which drew revenue from the whole of the Metropolis, paid half the salary of the whole of the officers mentioned. He must admit that in the event of the Bill proving that the medical inspection had to be increased and more inspectors had to be appointed the Local Government Board could only
  1740
  act on the experience of six months' working of the Bill. Until that experience was forthcoming he was assured by the medical officer of the Local Government Board and the efficient staff working under him that in hearty co-operation with the existing medical and sanitary officers they would be able to do a great deal of good without adding a single penny either to the local rates or to the Imperial taxes. He therefore appealed to the hon. Member not to press the Amendment, and as representing a district in which a large quantity of meat of this character was unloaded, to assist to give that power which these authorities were asking him (Mr. Burns) through this Bill to grant. The Local Government Board had not received from the whole of the Port Sanitary Authorities of England and Wales nor from any medical officer or any association of medical officers, a single protest against the powers which were sought to be secured by this Bill. On the contrary, they had the unanimous support of all the local authorities on whom these duties would be devolved. In these circumstances he thought his hon. friend would be well advised not to press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNERsaid he had on the order paper an Amendment in the following terms:—
  "In page 1, line 25, at end, to insert the words "(3) Nothing in this Act shall authorise the creating of an authority other than the existing sanitary and port sanitary authorities to carry out the regulations made under this Act.'"
  They had had the assurance from the right hon. Gentleman however, that he did not intend to interfere with the local authorities. The object of his Amendment was that there should not be two authorities set up to deal with this question; that there should, in fact, be no rival authorities in competition with the existing authorities which now dealt with these questions. As they had had that assurance from the right hon. Gentleman he would not move his Amendment, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman had very wide powers given him in this Bill.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. JOHN BURNS MR. JOHN BURNS moved a new clause in fulfilment of a pledge to the House as to the laying of regulations before Parliament for forty days, their publication in the London Gazette, and other incidental conditions.
  New Clause—
  "All regulations made under this Act shall be laid as soon as may be before Parliament, and the Rules Publication Act, 1893, shall apply to such regulations as if they were statutory rules within the meaning of Section 1 of that Act, and that Act as so applied shall, notwithstanding anything in Subsection 5 of Section 1 thereof, extend to Scotland, with the substitution of a reference to the Edinburgh Gazette for the reference to the London Gazette."
  Brought up and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. PIKE PEASEsaid that he wished to raise one or two questions in regard to this matter because he believed it was one of very great importance. He thought that this Bill was too important a measure to be taken at that hour. He saw by the Amendment just moved that all the regulations made under the Act were to be laid as soon as might be before Parliament, and that the Rules Publication Act should apply to such regulations as if they were statutory rules within the meaning of Section 1 of that Act. In reference to that he would like to ask what opportunity the House of Commons would have for considering these regulations. It seemed to him that if they were to apply the same system to other Acts of Parliament they would be able under an Amendment of that kind to legislate to a considerable extent. He for one would be only too pleased to allow the right hon. Gentleman to be an autocrat so far as the Local Government Board was concerned, knowing that in his hands the welfare of the country would be perfectly safe. Nevertheless they could not expect the right hon. Gentleman to be followed
  1742
  by a gentleman of exactly the same capacity, and it seemed to him a very serious matter for Parliament to allow any President of the Local Government Board or any authority to have the powers contained in that particular Amendment. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what the Amendment meant, and whether the House of Commons would have an opportunity at any time of discussing these regulations.
  MR. MOOREsaid the Bill was really carrying out and extending the powers of the Public Health Act of 1896. That applied to England and Scotland, and under the new clause which the right hon. Gentleman brought up he had very properly put in a provision that in the application of these further powers to Scotland the Edinburgh Gazette was to be substituted for the London Gazette. As the principal Act applied to Ireland just as it did to Scotland and England, was there any objection to adding to the new clause a provision that the Dublin Gazette should be used in so far as the Act applied to Ireland. He did not put forward the claim in any contentious way, but he did not see that there could be any objection.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he would like to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. In the earlier part of the discussion in Committee he had said that he did not think the Bill would be a dead letter in the right hon. Gentleman's hands. Might he express the hope that so long as the right hon. Gentleman was at the Local Government Board, he would make it his business that Parliament should have an opportunity, anyhow, in the first year of discussing these new regulations? It was all very well to say that under the provisions of the Bill the rules would be on the Table of the House for forty days, but the knew that that, to all intents and purposes, especially under the conditions under which business was now conducted, was, except in rare exceptions, an absolute farce; the chance of a private Member being able to raise a question on the laying of regulations was very remote indeed. The regulations really were

  1743
  the means by which Parliament would be able annually to overhaul the treatment of the food of the people. The question was, therefore, of the first importance for the health not only of adults but also, what was in many respects more important, of the children, and he most sincerely asked the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence with the Leader of the House to see that an adequate opportunity of discussing the matter was reserved. They might be told they would have it on the Local Government Board Vote, but they all knew that, although the Local Government Board Vote was far more important in many respects than the Home Office Vote, only one day as a rule was allowed.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: Not one this year.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that, at most, two had been given in recent years and the bill of fare for the day was of such variety and such importance that there was very little chance of such an item as these regulations forming part of it. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider his suggestion.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid that during his Parliamentary career he had noticed on several occasions that when a Minister in charge of a Bill was confronted by serious opposition as to want of full details as to the working of a particular measure, he fell back on the expedient which the right hon. Gentleman had adopted on this occasion. He had introduced a Bill of one clause saying that Regulations for the carrying out of that Bill would be laid on the Table of the House, and had led the House to believe or understand that they would have an opportunity of discussing these Regulations. With regard to a great number of Bills perhaps that was sufficient assurance, but he did not know whether the Committee had properly realised what appeared to be vested in the Local Government Board under this Bill. Under the Bill and under the clause they were now discussing the Local Government Board would be able by mere rules to do things which if they were in an Act of Parliament would be
  1744
  the subject of very serious and long discussion. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman when he proposed that new clause, or when he gave the pledge to which he referred a few moments ago, must have done so, to use a somewhat vulgar expression, with his tongue in his cheek, knowing perfectly well that the proposal was really not worth the paper on which it was printed. Let them take that session. Supposing the Bill had been passed into law last session and the Regulations foreshadowed under that particular Amendment had been laid on the Table of the House any time during the latter half of the session, what opportunity would there have been of discussing the Regulations? The Regulations of the Bill were drastic and far-reaching, and they were of such a character that the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that the House should have an opportunity of discussing them. At the present time it was quite clear that under the pressure of business to which the House of late had been accustomed, it would be utterly impossible to get any opportunity. He had not gone into any statistics, but the right hon. Gentleman must know that during the last two months of this session almost every day had been allocated by the various guillotine and other Resolutions, and that it would have been impossible for any Member, even the right hon. Gentleman himself, to introduce a discussion on such a matter as the Regulations foreshadowed under that clause. Personally he was not very intimately interested in the Bill, except in so far as it was pointed out by the hon. Member for Bermondsey that a large quantity of the food which was landed in his particular constituency was distributed through all parts of the country. For all he knew his own constituency might consume a number of the potted rabbits, potted pork, and other foods which had been spoken of. That gave him a direct interest in the Bill. He would point out particularly that, whereas the right hon. Gentleman might think he was making a considerable concession under that Amendment, he was in reality doing nothing of the kind. The probability of the Regulations being discussed by the House was remote in the extreme.
  MR. WHITELEYsaid he would make an appeal to Members opposite and to the House generally. It was the idea of the Government that the House would get the Appropriation Bill by about eleven o'clock and they were desirous of getting the first seven or eight Orders on the Paper, most of which were entirely non-contentious. They were disappointed in not getting the Appropriation Bill till nearly twelve. He made the arrangement with the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Forster) that they should get the next three Orders. He was sure the Opposition would abide by that arrangement. If the Opposition were to go on discussing these Orders the arrangement was no use whatever, because they could get the Orders at any time in such circumstances. The House would see hat it was not quite fair to arrange to give a certain number of Orders and then to discuss them as if no arrangement had been made. He did not imply that there should be no discussion whatever, but he thought hon. Members would support him in the view that there should be nothing in the nature of detailed discussion.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Dr. MACNAMARA)said the clause was a considerable concession. As a matter of fact Local Government Board Regulations and Orders were ruled out expressly from any necessity of the kind. The Board made Regulations under various Public Health Acts, under the Unemployed Workmen Act and under the Poor Law and other Acts; and if hon. Members would look at the Rules Publication Act of 1893 they would see that these regulations were specially ruled out. But on his occasion, in deference to public opinion, the President proposed to present Rules to the House, This was the scheme under which it was proposed to lay these Rules.—

  RULES PUBLICATION ACT 1893.
  1. (1) "At least forty days before making any statutory rules to which this section applies notice of the proposal to make the rules, and the place where copies of the draft rules may be obtained, shall be published in the London Gazette.
  (2) "During those forty days any public body may obtain copies of such draft rules on payment
  1746
  of not exceeding threepence per folio, and any representations or suggestions made in writing by a public body interested to the authority proposing to make the rules shall be taken into consideration by that authority before finally settling the rules; and on the expiration of those forty days the rules may be made by the rulemaking authority, either as originally drawn or as amended by such authority, and shall come into operation forthwith or at such time as be prescribed in the rules."
  The fullest consideration would be given to any representations that were made upon the Rules. He pointed out that it would be impossible in the case of emergency to lay Rules for forty days. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would see that that would defeat the whole object.
  MR. MOOREsaid he merely wished to ask whether Englishmen and Scotsmen were to be protected from poisoning, while Irishmen were not. The right hon. Gentleman had made no reply to the suggestion that the new clause should include the Dublin Gazette.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he would be pleased to consider that point between then and the Report stage, and if the Act of 1895 applied to Ireland he would see what could be done.
  MR. MOOREsaid he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Act of 1895 did apply to Ireland.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he was very disappointed that, because in the past the Local Government Board had pursued a bad policy of issuing the Regulations without Parliament having any control, the argument should be adduced that that practice ought to be continued. The matter they were dealing with was one by which the health of the people and certain industries were vitally affected. He wished to know whether the President of the Local Government Board would between then and the Report stage try so to amend the new clause as to provide words which would give him power to act before the forty days had elapsed in the event of an emergency arising. Would he also preserve the control and power of Parliament so far as he

  1747
  could, so that they might be able to discuss the Regulations?
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he would be pleased to consider the point suggested by the hon. Member. If after five or six months experience of the Regulations the House desired to have an opportunity of discussing them and a demand was made for the Local Government Board Vote or a portion of it to be taken he would do his best to see that it was acceded to. Parliament might think it was necessary that special consideration should be given to that subject and if so he would do his best to meet their wishes.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  THE DEPUTY-SPEAKERtook the Chair and the Bill was reported, with Amendments, to the House.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow (Friday).

  IRISH LAND (No. 2) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1:—
  MR. MOORE MR. MOORE moved an Amendment to provide that transactions in connection with the mineral rights which were under the Bill vested in the Land Commissioners should be carried out through the Judicial Commissioner.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. CALDWELL, Lanarkshire, Mid.)said that that was not the proper place for the Amendment. It should come after the Amendment standing in the name of the Attorney General for Ireland.
  MR. MOOREthought he could satisfy the Committee that there was a difference
  1748
  between the two Amendments. When they discussed the Second Beading of the Bill, his friends and he made suggestions, which were treated as though they were frivolous. They had ample justification for the course they then took in the fact that mast of their suggestions, or at any rate a fair number of them, had been adopted by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. The Amendment he moved was in keeping with the Amendment the Attorney-General for Ireland had put down for a later stage. Under the Act of 1903 the mineral rights were vested in the Land Commission, and the object of this Bill was to enable the Land Commission to dispose of them. The portion of the Land Commission which under the Act of 1903 had particular charge of those rights, were the three particular members known as the Estates Commissioners. Under the Attorney-General's Amendment the Estates Commissioners were only to act with the approval of the Judicial Commissioner, who was the head of that body, but under his Amendment they were to act through the Judicial Commissioner. Leases were to be made under the Bill, for the object of the Bill was to enable the Land Commission to make leases. He thought that it was advisable that the Land Commission should act through its official head. That was quite in keeping with the provision that the acts should be done by the Estates Commissioners. The Judicial Commissioner was the head of the whole Department. He was a Judge, and was accustomed to deal with legal matters. It was highly desirable, therefore, that these matters which involved legal transactions and questions of contract should be carried out by the Judicial Commissioner. The Attorney-General for Ireland himself could not suggest that there was any other official of the Court to whom it would be proper to give the right of representing the Department. The Bill dealt with contracts either expressed or implied, and it was a perfectly proper thing that the head of the Department should be the instrument by which the seal of the Department was affixed. The head of the Department was a Judge of the High Court, and there would be no difficulty if he had to carry out the work.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 3, after the word 'Commission' to insert the words 'acting through the Judicial Commissioner.'"—(Mr. Moore.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GORDONsaid he wanted to say a word before the Attorney-General replied to the hon. Member. He thought that in dealing with these leases no one would deny that there ought to be a great deal of care taken. They were going to deal with what ought to be and he hoped would be very valuable property, and it was necessary that the very best terms should be made. There was now at the head of the Land Court a gentleman who was a member of the High Court of Justice. He did not think it would be wrong if that gentleman were to use his experience to see that the best terms were obtained. The Attorney-General for Ireland had proposed, or would propose, that the words should be "acting with the approval of the Judicial Commissioner." He would like to know what that meant. Acting through the Judicial Commissioner was a very definite thing, but what did acting with the approval of the Judicial Commissioner mean. His hon. friend's Amendment meant that the Judicial Commissioner was to form his own opinion, but did acting with the approval of the Judicial Commissioner mean the same thing? Did it mean that the Judicial Commissioner was to examine and inquire into everything and see whether it was worthy of receiving his approval? If that was what was meant the Amendment was the same as that of his hon. friend. If it did not really mean that the act was to be the act of the Judicial Commissioner after inquiring and satisfying himself that it was the proper thing to do, the Attorney-General should explain what he really did mean If the Attorney-General considered the Judicial Commissioner should inquire into the matters before giving his approval, then it was obvious that the proper Amendment was that of his hon. friend. Was there any sound objection to putting in the Bill a condition of that
  1750
  kind and ensuring that a gentleman of great legal experience and attainments should be the person to deal with the matter?
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,)said he was sorry that anybody should suppose that on the Second Reading of that Bill he should have given rise to the opinion that the Amendments and suggestions made by his hon. friends were frivolous, He was afraid that some of his hon. friends on that side of the House thought that the matter raised would have been more suitably discussed in Committee. As regarded the Amendment, he had been asked to say why he had inserted the words "with the approval of" in his Amendment and what he meant by them. Under the Act of 1903 the mineral rights were vested in the Land Commissioners, to be disposed of in a manner afterwards to be provided by Parliament. A subsequent section of the same Act provided that the jurisdiction and duties of the Land Commission under the preceding section were to be exercised exclusively by the Estates Commissioners. The effect of the Act was to vest the mineral rights in the Estates Commissioners and to impose on them the duty of looking after those mineral rights. They did not wish to relieve them of their duty to look after these mineral rights, and to dispose of them to the best advantage. The Amendment proposed by the hon. Member that the Estates Commissioners should act through the Judicial Commissioner would mean that they excluded the Estates Commissioners altogether. They had no objection whatsoever to the Judicial Commissioner doing it if he could find time to do so, but they did not seek to impose on him in addition to the multifarious duties he had to perform at present the duty of exclusively looking after mining rights. What his Amendment carried out was that the practical matters as regarded the leasing of mining rights would be dealt with by the Estates Commissioners, but that when it came to actually making the lease the legal aspect of the case would be looked after by the Judicial Commissioner. The object of the words he proposed to insert was that the Judicial

  1751
  Commissioner should approve of the lease in the same way that a barrister would approve of the legal form of a lease drawn up in any ordinary case.
  MR. GORDONasked if the learned Gentleman would have any objection to putting that in.
  MR. CHERRYsaid he had no objection to the alteration being made.
  MR. MOOREquite agreed with what the learned Attorney-General had said, but thought that he had mistaken the point of the Amendment. There was nothing inconsistent in the two Amendments. He only suggested that when the Seal of the Court had to be affixed on behalf of the Land Commission the Judge should be a party to the contract. That was tantamount to saying that the Department should act through the Judicial Commissioner.
  MR. CHERRY: The Seal of the Land Commissioners?
  MR. MOORE: That is all I meant. They should act through the Judicial Commissioner, and the right hon. Gentleman's own Amendment which comes later on the Paper is not inconsistent with that.
  MR. CHERRY: It seems to me it would be rather inconsistent with my Amendment.
  MR. MOOREsaid he would like to have it explained how the two Amendments were inconsistent. The Land Commissioners could do everything under the Bill, and the final thing they would have to do was to execute an instrument giving effect to the lease. It was very unsatisfactory that the Estates Commissioners should have to execute a document of this kind when a Judge of the High Court was the head of the Commission.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid that the objection of the learned Attorney-General
  1752
  to the proposal was that it would throw a considerable amount of extra work on the Judicial Commissioner. In his own speech the right hon. Gentleman said that according to his Amendment these instruments could only be executed with the approval of the Judicial Commissioner; but how could the Judicial Commissioner approve of these things? What was the difference between obtaining the approval of the Judicial Commissioner and his actually signing the document? It seemed to him that the same amount of work would be thrown on the Judicial Commissioner in the one case as in the other. If the objection was that it threw an extra burden on the Judicial Commissioner it appeared to him that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman imposed on the Judicial Commissioner the same amount of work as the Amendment of his hon. friend. Therefore he did not think that for that reason, at any rate, the learned Attorney-General could reasonably object to the proposal of his hon. friend, which seemed to him more business-like, and from the legal point of view more satisfactory.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. FETHERSTONAUGH MR. FETHERSTONAUGH (Fermanagh, N.) moved an Amendment to provide that the person entitled to 25 per cent. of the profits to be derived from any sale or leasing mineral rights should have notice and an opportunity of being heard in connection with any proposed sale or letting. He thought that the occupier of the lands might also very properly have notice and an opportunity of being heard if he so desired on the question of the sale or letting of these mineral rights. At present he would be precluded from this. He did not want to raise any controversy, but he would be glad if the learned Attorney-General could see his way to embody some provision in the Bill which would enable the owner or occupier to be heard.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 5, after 'Land Commission,' to insert the words' with the approval of the Judicial Commissioner and after giving to the person entitled to 25 per cent. of the rent, purchase money, or other net profit under Section 13, Sub-section 3, of the Irish Land

  1753
  Act, 1903, an opportunity of being heard.'"—(Mr. Fetherstonhaugh.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHERRYsaid he proposed to add at the end of the clause making the grant of the lease subject to the approval of the Judicial Commission these words: "And after having when practicable ascertained the views of the person entitled to the aforesaid percentage." He did not however, provide for a notice.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGHsaid that he quite saw the learned Attorney-General's point, and he was glad to assent to his suggestion so far as the person entitled to 25 per cent. profit was concerned.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. AINSWORTHsaid that he wished to call the attention of the Committee for a moment to one important point in the clause. He would like to move to leave out the word "sell." It struck him that in dealing with the minerals of the country it would be certainly most unfortunate if the Estates Commissioners, whose jurisdiction practically extended over the greater part of Ireland, and would in time extend over the whole of it, hastily parted with mineral rights which might become of enormous value in course of time. It was highly desirable that the whole of the minerals of the country should be under the control of a central authority, and now there was an opportunity of bringing that to pass in Ireland, the point he raised as to not unwisely disposing altogether of these great assets ought to be considered. He suggested that while they might give the Estates Commissioners power to dispose of the mineral rights by way of lease they should not confer on them the power of sale. Of course if it became necessary after seeing how the Act worked to give the Commissioners the power of sale,
  1754
  it could be easily done, but at present it would be sufficient that they should simply have the power to let the mineral rights. Everyone who had any acquaintance with minerals knew that it was almost impossible to say what the value of any particular kind of mineral rights might become in course of time. Mineral rights which had been under the control of the State in Great Britain had often been parted with in former times on most unfortunate terms, and the profits, which had sometimes been immense, had gone to a third party.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 5, to leave out the word 'sell.'"—(Mr. Ainsworth.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'sell' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. CHERRYsaid he could assure his hon. friend that, so far as he knew, the intention of the Estates Commissioners was that these mineral rights should be dealt with by the ordinary mining leases. But, in any event, it would be undesirable to hamper the Estates Commissioners by preventing them from selling any portion of the mining rights which they might find it necessary to do. The general intention was, however, that the rights should be leased in the ordinary way.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 1, line 6, to leave out the words for his own benefit.'"
  "In page 1, lines 6 and 7, to leave out the words 'on such terms.'"
  "In page 1, line 8, after the word 'proper,' to insert the words, 'and at the best rent or price, as the case may be, which may be, obtainable.'"—(Mr. Cherry.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  MR. BARRIE MR. BARRIE moved, to amend the clause by the addition of the words "always provided that such intention to let, lease, sell, or demise has duly

  1755
  been published in the newspapers, and inviting offers for such rights, one month to be allowed for sending in of offers." He thought the purpose of the Amendment was obvious. It was very desirable that when it was the intention of the Estates Commissioners to lease any minerals that lease should not be confined to company promoters. He was anxious that the public should know that it was the intention of the Estates Commissioners to part with such right, and that public information should be given of that intention. It was extremely desirable that every facility should be given to people interested in mining enterprises to secure these rights should they desire to do so. If such words as he proposed were not added his fear was that mining enterprises in Ireland might get into the hands of a very few individuals or companies.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 10, at end, to insert the words 'always provided that such intention to let, lease, sell, or demise, has duly been published in the newspapers, and inviting offers for such rights, one month to be allowed for sending in of offers.'"—(Mr. Barrie.)
  Question, proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHERRYappealed to the hon. Member to withdraw the Amendment. Such details must be left to the Estates Commissioners. They might want to give two months or three months, as circumstances might arise. If they went into these details they would find that in some way they had bound the Estates Commissioners down in a way they did not intend. He assured the hon. Member the mineral rights would be disposed of to the best advantage and in a proper way.
  MR. MOOREhoped the hon. Member would not withdraw his Amendment. It was perfectly right that these people who were dealing with public property should put an advertisement into the newspapers, just as a man did in his ordinary business, that these rights were for sale and were to be disposed of. That should not be done in a back office. There should be notice given to the
  1756
  public. There was a large market for these mineral rights, and it was perfectly fair that everybody should have notice. The Estates Commissioners were not strange to advertisement. At present they had to advertise practically every step they took in the Dublin Gazette. To say that it was going to be a hardship to put this ordinary notice into the papers was quite unreasonable. They wanted the best rates obtainable for these rights. For that there must be competition, and how could there be competition unless with advertisement.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid there was nothing which would bring the Estates Commissioners a better price than advertisement, and he did not see what possible objection the Attorney-General could have to the proposal. As had been already pointed out the Estates Commissioners had to advertise nearly everything they had to do. There could be no objection on the point of expense, and there was everything to be said for bringing these valuable rights before the public when they were to be disposed of.
  MR. CHERRYsaid he would agree to the publication in one newspaper in the locality.
  MR. MOORE: And in the Dublin Gazette.
  MR. CHERRY: Yes.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CHERRY MR. CHERRY moved "In page 1, line 12, after the word 'may' to insert the words 'subject to the provisions of Subsection 4 of the said Section.'" The object, he said, was to provide for compensation. The clause provided that any person entering on the land in pursuance of the subsection should be liable to make reasonable amendment.
  MR. MOOREappealed to the Attorney-General to reconsider his position. He recognised he had done something to meet him (Mr. Moore) but he pointed out

  1757
  that the occupier of the land was really going to be the person to suffer any hardship by the entrance of prospectors or borers or excavators. As the law stood, before such a man bought out his holding the landlord was directly responsible to him for any damage done by persons who entered in that way. But now that the estate had been sold out, what was his position? The Bill gave the Estates Commissioners power to allow people to enter to bore and excavate. He took it that those people who were going to do these things would never take out a lease. It might be they were not sufficiently solvent for the Commissioners to give them the lease. They arrived from England or somewhere else on the farm in Ireland. Against whom had the farmer any remedy? Against the company? How was he to go to London to present a claim against a company that was perhaps in liquidation? It was the Estates Commissioners which authorised these things to take place, and if the Commissioners were not to be primarily responsible there was no real remedy for damage that might be caused. It was in a great many cases an illusory remedy to give a man a right against a syndicate in London. The farmer should be really indemnified, and the people who ought to do it were the Estates Commissioners who were beneficially entitled to three fourths of the minerals in the property. The section would leave the occupiers without due protection, and unless the Estates Commissioners were to be responsible there was no remedy.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. MOORE MR. MOORE moved an Amendment which he said was the Attorney-General's own Amendment plus protection to the occupier.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 14, at end to insert the words, "And the Land Commission shall be primarily responsible to the occupier of the lands entered upon for the purposes of this Act for any compensation or damages by reason thereof to which such occupier shall become entitled, and same shall be part of their expenses under this Act.'"
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHERRYsaid he could not accept the Amendment at that moment, but he would consider the matter on Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CHERRY MR. CHERRY moved to add the words—"(4) The powers conferred upon the Irish Land Commission by this section shall only be exercised with the approval of the Judicial Commissioner and after having, where practicable, ascertained the views of the person entitled to the aforesaid percentage," He had already said what the object was. It was to be the duty of the Land Commissioner to inform him, it might be by letter, and to ask what were his views. They wanted to ascertain as far as possible what were his views, and if he had any views they were bound to listen to them. They did not, however, want to be troubled with too much red tape which would hamper them and take up time.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 23, at the end to add the words, 'The powers conferred upon the Irish Land Commissioner by this section shall only be exercised with the approval of the Judicial Commissioner, and after having, where practicable, ascertained the views of the person entitled to the aforesaid percentage."
  MR. MOOREsaid he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman if the notice to the vendor such as it was, he knew it was not a formal notice, would extend to the occupier of the land?
  MR. CHERRYsaid the notice did not deal with the occupier.
  MR. MOOREsaid it was surely as much the right of the occupier of the land as the right of anyone to receive notice. If the Amendment was extended to include the occupier, it would be more satisfactory.
  MR. CHERRYsaid he did not think it would be proper to include the occupier.
  MR. MOOREsaid he wished to move an Amendment to the Amendment, but he was in a difficulty as he had not the actual words of the Amendment before him. He would suggest that words should be inserted which would include

  1759
  the occupier. Perhaps the Attorney-General for Ireland would suggest how it could be done.
  MR. CHERRYsaid he did not think that should come in. The occupier had nothing to do with the minerals.
  MR. GORDONsaid the Attorney-General had forgotten the early part of the subsection—
  "For the purpose of ascertaining the value of any such right, the Commissioner may, either alone or in association with any other persons, make such borings and other experiments as in the opinion of the Commissioners appear necessary or desirable. "
  Supposing they wanted to go to a particular part of the land, it might be very inconvenient.
  MR. MOOREsaid he wished to point out that it would be a great nuisance to the occupier to have people coming on his land and committing all sorts of serious damage. In many cases of that kind the tenant might prefer to acquire the mineral rights himself. But though notice was to be sent to the syndicate and to the landlord, the man most vitally affected had no information, and was not able to say he would rather buy than have people damaging the land.
  MR. CHERRYsaid he must again repeat that he thought notice to the occupier was unnecessary. The occupier would have the same rights as he had under the Act of 1881. He could not accept the suggestion. If they accepted it it would imply too much red tape.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2:—
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH*MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH moved—"To leave out Subsection (2), and insert, 'It shall be the duty of the personal representative of the testator within the time limited by this section to register any such charge.'" He said he was sorry to have to move his Amendment at that late hour of the night, for it was rather a complex matter which might need some discussion to bring it fully to the minds of hon. Members, and
  1760
  for them to understand what it really meant. The second clause of the Bill, as was explained by the Attorney-General for Ireland, and in the Memorandum with the Bill, proposed an amendment of Subsection (4) of Section 54 of the Act of 1903, which was necessary for the protection of the interests of the owners of charges created by will or codicil. The section dealt with the period within which the registration of a charge on a holding by deed of charge or mortgage and also of a charge by will must be made. The section was highly objectionable, for it was a restriction on a man from dealing with his land in the best way he could, He would not make a general attack on the whole section, but would deal only with the charges by will. The original section provided that if the charge was not registered within six months of the death of the testator the charge should be null and void. The registration could not always be carried out within six months of death of testator. The section now provided that such a charge must be registered within six months of the probate of the will. That was better than the former section, for the will might not be proved within six months and then, without anybody being at fault, the children would be defrauded by that extraordinary provision. There were cases in which a person to whom a charge on land was left might not know it was left to him. The Attorney-General for Ireland now wanted to make the time for registration within six months of the probate of the will. It was a step in the right direction, but it was perfectly obvious that the section could not stand even at that. Subsection (2) provided that the registration should be effected by the person beneficially entitled to the holding. But he might be in Australia or Timbuctoo. Those words were open to grave objection. There might be half-a-dozen persons beneficially interested. If a man left land to several people, which of them was to register the charge? The section, as it read at present, seemed perfectly useless. A man might not know he was beneficially entitled, or the land might be left to a minor or a child. Who would register then? If the charge was not registered the person entitled to it lost it. The Attorney-General suggested that the person beneficially interested would be liable to an action if he did not register. If the

  1761
  person beneficially interested was a minor or a child the charge would be lost and no action would lie. He thought the Amendment which he moved was better than that of the Attorney-General for Ireland. He would have preferred to move Amendments in his name which were lower down on the Paper, but as that one came first he would move it. It secured that if the person beneficially interested should not register the charge, the personal representative should do it for him. If the section was to stand some extraordinary provision as to registering a charge would have to be made. His suggestion as to the amendment of the section was really to abolish altogether the restriction on charging by will. Was it not a dreadful thing that an Act of Parliament should leave it to a kind of chance whether persons, who would generally be minors, should get the charge or not?
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 6, to leave out Subsection (2), and insert, 'It shall be the duty of the personal representative of the testator within the time limited by this section to register any such charge.'"—(Mr. Fetherstonhaugh.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'such registration' stand part of the clause."
  MR. CHERRYsaid that this was rather a warning against any Minister in charge of a Bill accepting suggestions from hon. Members. The House would be surprised to hear it, but it was at the special request of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself that this clause was inserted in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman pressed on him the importance of dealing with this matter, and he (Mr. Cherry) had done so to the best of his ability. The result was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman now severely criticised his proposal, and four or five Amendments to it were put down on the Paper. The hon. Gentleman proposed to case the duty of registering the charge on the personal representative of the testator. He (Mr. Cherry) would only point out that the unfortunate personal representative of the testator would be liable to an action for damages if he inadvertently neglected to register the charge. His own clause put the duty on the person entitled to the
  1762
  land, and it seemed to him that the clause as he had framed it met the justice of the case very much better than the Amendment.
  MR. MOORE: I understand that the effect of non-registration after six months is that the charge lapses?
  MR. CHERRY: Yes.
  MR. MOOREasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would, before the Report stage, consider the advisability of bringing in a clause whereby the rights of minors could be protected.
  MR. CHERRYsaid he really could not do that.
  MR. MOOREsaid he would not delay the proceedings if the learned Attorney-General could say that he would bring it up on Report. It would be a monstrous thing if because a man refused to register a charge a minor, very likely a mere child, should lose every penny.
  MR. CHERRY: The child would not lose every penny.
  MR. MOOREsaid it was impossible to contend with any show of justice that if a charge on land was got rid of, it was adequately met by a right of damages against some person who might not be worth sixpence.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. CHERRY MR. CHERRY moved in page 2, line 6, after "registration" to insert "if not previously effected by some other person." He said that the duty of registering was cast upon any person who was entitled to the land, but the Amendment was to provide that any other person might do it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH*MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH moved the following Clauses:—
  "Subsections 3, 4, and 5, of Section 54 of The Irish Land Act, 1903, are hereby repealed.
  "Section 54, Subsections 3 and 4, of The Irish Land Act, 1903, shall not apply to any charge created by will or codicil, and the words 'or in the case of a charge created by will or codicil within six months from the death of the testator shall be null and void' contained in Subsection 3 of Section 54 of said Act are hereby repealed."
  He said that these clauses were intended to carry out the proposal which he suggested a short time previously, namely, that the whole of that portion of the section which dealt with charges by will and required them to be registered should be omitted by repeal of portions of Section 54, or rather by providing that it should not apply to any charge created by will or codicil. The learned Attorney-General had hardly, he thought, represented the case fairly in saying that he (Mr. Fether-stonhaugh) had asked him to bring in the section which he had inserted. He asked the learned Attorney-General to bring in an Amendment to this extraordinary Section 54, and he made two or three suggestions to the learned Gentleman on the point. The clause which the right hon. Gentleman had brought in did not, however, embody any one of those suggestions, and he hardly thought that the learned Gentleman could be serious when he suggested to the Committee that if a minor was deprived of his charge by the non-registration of the charge by the person beneficially entitled to the land, that person could be made answerable for damages. The person entitled to the land might be a minor, and if that was the case how could he be made answerable for damages to another minor? That was only one example of how the learned Attorney-General's proposal would not work, and of how the horrible injustice that was being perpetrated under this measure would be perpetuated.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANasked the hon. and learned Member whether it was the first or second clause which he was moving.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: They are together.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: They must come separately.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: Then I move the first.
  New Clause—
  "Subsections 3, 4, and 5, of Section 54 of The Irish Land Act, 1903, are hereby repealed."—(Mr. Fetherstonhaugh.)
  Brought up and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. CHERRYsaid that he would be glad to discuss this question at any other time, but he really would not take up the time of the Committee now by doing so. The case put by the hon. and learned Member went entirely beyond the section which he had inserted.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he objected in the strongest terms that he was capable of to being told by the learned Attorney-General on the sole and only occasion when they had had an opportunity of discussing this Bill that he was not going to enter into the merits, or the demerits as he would think, on this clause at that hour of the night. That, to his mind, was simply an insult to the Opposition, who had put down Amendments to this Bill. If the learned Attorney-General objected to Bills being considered at that hour of the night, his proper course was to approach the Prime Minister and have them discussed during the day. The Attorney General was the last person who should object to Amendments of this kind being discussed at any time. It was a most insulting thing for any member of the Front Bench opposite to object to discuss Amendments on the ground that they had to come on at that time of the night. The Opposition were not responsible for the discussion of the Bill at that time of the night. He maintained that all the Amendments which had been put down by hon. Members on the Opposition side had been put down simply and solely, as the Attorney-General knew, for improving the Bill. The discussion during the time the Bill had been before the Committee had all been directed to that object, and to be told that the Attorney-General refused to reply to the observations of his hon. friend was simply adding insult to injury.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid that the speech to which the Committee had just listened was one which ought not to have been delivered at that time of the night. An hour and three-quarters previously an arrangement was made that the Government were to be allowed to get the first three orders. It was now half-past-two, and owing to the opposition of a few hon. Members they had not yet finished the second order. The word insult was used. He maintained that that constituted a Parliamentary outrage, and it would tend to make all agreements with regard to business impossible if hon. Members would not abide by agreements made by chose who were supposed to be responsible for them.
  MR. FORSTERsaid he felt bound to intervene for one moment. He did not think there was any reason why the atmosphere of the House should become unduly heated. No one who had listened, as he had done, to the whole of the debate which had taken place on the Bill could come to any other conclusion than that, although the discussion had taken a considerable time, it had not been unduly long and it had been directed to salient points on the Bill. He really did not think that any suggestion of obstruction could be sustained against Members of the Opposition. He was bound to say that he did not think the present heat would have been imported into the debate if it had not been for the unfortunate, though he believed unintentional, observation which was let fall by the Attorney-General for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman objected, and said it was impossible to discuss an important topic at that late hour of the night. That might or might not be the case, but he did not think it was the point urged by his hon. and learned friend behind him. The Patronage Secretary had made reference to an arrangement which had been entered into between them. If anyone was to be blamed for disappointed hopes engendered by that arrangement it was he (Mr. Forster).
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: I did not blame anyone.
  MR. FORSTERsaid that was so, but he could not hold himself blameless
  1766
  in the matter. He thought an arrangement could be entered into to give the next three orders with only a brief discussion. He misapprehended the situation. He did not count upon the exuberant oratory of his hon. friends behind.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The hon. Member must really revert to the Amendment now.
  MR. FORSTERsaid that all he wanted to say was, if his hon. friends had really been bent on being obstructive, they would not have arrived at that advanced period of the Bill. He hoped they would now be able to bring the discussion on the Bill to a speedy termination. His hon. friends, he knew, would support him.
  MR. MOOREsaid the fact that the Amendments of himself and his friends were just was proved by the fact that the Attorney-General had accepted about seven-eighths of them. He and his friends had let the Bill through Second Reading without a division, and that was the first opportunity they had had of discussion. There had not been a single obstructive Amendment. So far as they were concerned, they would carry out any arrangements, but he wished to point out to the Chief Whip that the Amendments had been business Amendments, and that that was the only opportunity they had had of discussion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill reported, with Amendments, to the House.

  JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1:—
  MR. FORSTER: If I might intervene for a moment I would appeal to the hon. Member who has an Amendment on the

  1767
  Paper and to those who support it to reserve any observations till Report.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: There will be no Report stage.
  MR. MOORE MR. MOORE moved, "In page 1, line 1, to leave out 'two vacancies' and insert 'next vacancy.' In the circumstances he merely formally moved, though he confessed he was rather in a difficulty in doing so.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGrose to register a protest against what was a virtual application of the guillotine on the Bill. The Amendment on the Paper was of great importance to a great number of people in Ireland, and he himself had handed in an Amendment which he considered important. In view of the agreement between the two Front Benches he felt more or less precluded from entering into the question at any length, because if he were to enter into a debate he would detain the Committee for at least another hour or two. ["Go on."] Although he, like his hon. friend, was in a difficulty, he would not, in view of the arrangement which had been entered into under a mistaken idea, go on. In ordinary circumstances the Amendment would have occupied considerable discussion, and he must repeat his protest, that it was only because of the agreement he and his hon. friends were allowing the matter to go without discussion.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he would like to intervene as a peacemaker. What he was going to ask of the Minister in charge of the Bill was this. He had sat up because he was interested in the salary of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, which he wished further to reduce, and what he wished to know was whether, in view of the arrangement come to, unknown to him, the Chief Whip would see that the Third Reading of the Bill was taken at such a time that they might have fair opportunity for discussing their views.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: It is the usual thing to take the Third Reading immediately in the case of a minor Bill.
  MR. FORSTER: In the circumstances I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press that.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: It has always been taken for granted. I did not even make any arrangement about it.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Are we to have no discussion at all?
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: It is almost a formal matter that Third Reading should follow immediately, as a sequel.
  MR. FORSTER: I know that it is constantly done, but I hope that in the circumstances, and seeing I have made a frank and full confession that I misapprehended the situation, the Third Reading will not be pressed just now.
  MR GEORGE WHITELEY: On the understanding that the Third Reading will not be debated at any great length, I will not ask for it now.
  MR. MOORE: We have not debated the matter at all.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: My hon. friends and myself are quite ready to meet the wishes of the Front Benches, but I would like to say that when the Third Reading comes up we must be allowed a reasonable time for discussion.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member withdraw his Amendment?
  MR. MOORE: Yes, I withdraw.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time Tomorrow (Friday).

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn"—(Mr. Whiteley)—put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned at a quarter before Three a.m.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR informed the House that he had received from the Judge of the Bankruptcy Court in Ireland a certificate that the Earl of Clancarty, who sits in this House as Viscount Clancarty, was adjudicated a bankrupt on the 24th June, 1907.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill. The consent of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Barry Railway Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments; and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Metropolitan Water Board (Various Powers) Bill. The King's consent signified; Bill read 3a; Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Colne Valley Water Bill [H.L.]; Glasgow Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Kilmarnock Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill. Brought from the Commons. Read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Hamilton of Dalzell), and reported from the Committee. (No. 178.)

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  FISHERIES (IRELAND).
  Report of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland on the sea and inland fisheries of Ireland for 1906. Part I. General Report.

  COMMERCIAL, No. 9 (1907).
  Despatch by Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Henry Trotter reporting upon the operations
  1514
  of the European Commission of the Danube during the years 1894–1906, together with a resumé of its previous history; (with plan), (with reference to "Commercial, No. 6 (1894)").
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Brought from the Commons. Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next.—(The Lord Tweedmouth.) (No. 177.)
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Can the noble Lord tell us when the Second Reading will be taken?
  LORD DENMAN: I am not in a position to answer that question. It is not a Government Bill, I understand.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: The Bill was starred by the Government in the other House.
  LORD DENMAN: I understand it is not to be looked after by the Government in this House. But I think we shall be able to let the noble Duke know beforehand on what day the Second Reading will be taken.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Am I to understand that His Majesty's Government intend to give no facilities for the passing of this Bill? I am informed that it was starred in the other House and taken as a Government measure.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): The Bill has only this moment come up to the House, and I do not yet know what course may be taken or who will have charge of the Bill. I can only say that the Government will give every facility for the passing of the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Will the noble Marquess be able to give us the information in the course of the evening?
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: Yes.

  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to order.
  Drafting Amendment in Clause 1 agreed to.
  THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO moved an Amendment to limit the evicted tenants to be reinstated to those whom the Commissioners should approve "before 1st November, 1907." The reasons for this he had stated in Committee. He was aware that the number of tenants to be dealt with had been limited to 2,000, but he thought it would considerably help the Commissioners in settling this matter if the Amendment were adopted. He was quite ready to put the date further back, and if the noble Earl the Lord President would accept 31st December, 1907, he would substitute that date for the date in the Amendment. They desired to see some finality in the matter, and the longer the operations under this Bill were extended the greater would be the drag on the working of the Act of 1903, as a great many of the officials who ought to be dealing with that Act would be engaged in transactions connected with the restoration of the evicted tenants. He hoped the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would accept some such limit as that proposed.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 4, to leave out the word 'considered,' and to insert the words 'have prior to the first day of November one thousand nine hundred and seven determined.'"—(The Earl of Mayo.)
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): I hope noble Lords opposite will not press this Amendment. The noble Lord at a later part of the Bill has put an Amendment on the Paper limiting the time during which the Act should be in operation. We are not prepared to accept that Amendment as he has moved it, but we are prepared to set a limit to the operation of the Bill. Noble Lords have already inserted in the Bill a limit of numbers, and I should have thought that this would show that the duration of the Bill could only be for a limited time. The House may remember that when this matter was raised before, I pointed out that in the opinion of the Estates Commissioners, they could not be absolutely
  1516
  certain, if this particular kind of limitation to individuals was inserted in the Bill, that there might not be a few hard cases with which they might not be able to deal in a given time. That is a state of things which they naturally do not contemplete with pleasure. I really think the limitation already inserted by the Committee, and the further limitation to which we are prepared to agree as regards the operation of the Bill, are a sufficient guarantee that the matter will be dealt with without delay. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press the Amendment. I fully recognise the desire he has shown to meet us by putting the date somewhat further back, but, in spite of this, for which I thank him, I trust he will not press the Amendment.
  LORD BARRYMOREexpressed his regret that the noble Earl was unable to accept the Amendment. This Bill had been brought in to settle, and to settle quickly, what was supposed to be a burning question. Surely it was in the interest of the Government, of the Commissioners, and of everybody concerned to get the matter settled as quickly as possible. The Chief Secretary in another place said on the Third Reading that the Government bad ascertained the dimensions of the problem and knew the acreage that would be required, and the only question was whether they ought to apply compulsion. He hoped the noble Earl would reconsider the matter.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I only wish to say that I take note of the Lord President's suggestion that we should rely upon the limit of numbers which has already been inserted in Clause 2. I interpret the noble Earl's words as an indication that we may look to the support of His Majesty's Government for the retention of that particular limit.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Perhaps I ought to explain. I expressed a preference, as the noble Marquess will remember, for a limit of area. The Committee, however, had an equally strong preference, on which they pronounced by vote, for a limit of numbers. I do not anticipate that there will be any difficulty in arriving at an agreement on that matter. I personally still think that a limit of numbers is a somewhat dangerous one, but it certainly

  1517
  is not a matter upon which His Majesty's Government would insist beyond a certain point.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREhad an Amendment on the Paper to amend Subsection (3) of Clause 1, by inserting after the words—
  "No tenanted land shall be acquired compulsorily unless it is in the occupation of a new tenant to whom this Act applies, and unless the Estates Commissioners, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, holding, and district"—
  the words—
  "other than any boycotting or intimidation directed against the owner or occupier of such land, and which has not been caused by reprehensible conduct on his part subsequent, in the case of the owner, to the last eviction of such land, or in the case of a new tenant, subsequent to the commencement of his tenancy."
  He explained that he did not propose to move this Amendment as the drafting was not considered quite satisfactory. His next Amendment, however, adopted the words used in Committee by the noble Earl the Lord President, and he hoped the Government would see their way to accept it. The object of the Amendment was to substitute for the words "the cost involved" the words "the cost of acquiring the land, including the cost of compensating the tenant thereof (if any)."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 16, to leave out the word 'involved' and to insert the words 'of acquiring the land, including the cost of compensating the tenant thereof (if any).'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  LORD DENMANsaid the Government had given no pledge as to the words. They merely explained the effect of the word "involved." The Government were unable to accept the words which the noble Earl desired to insert, chiefly because of an insuperable objection to the drafting. It was inaccurate to describe the cost of "acquiring" the land as including the cost of compensating the tenant.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid he withdrew his Amendment on the former occasion on the understanding that the Government appreciated their
  1518
  objection to the word "involved." The word "involved" could cover the cost of police protection.
  LORD DENMAN: No.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid he was advised by the best legal minds in Ireland that it could.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The question is purely one of interpretation. We are advised that the words "the cost involved" can only include three things—the cost of purchasing the land, of compensating the new tenant who goes out, and of equipping the holding for the tenant who succeeds. Therefore we consider the word "involved" sufficient.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  LORD EVERSLEY*LORD EVERSLEY moved to modify the proviso inserted in Clause 1 in Committee, on the motion of Lord Robertson, that planters who had purchased under the Act of 1903 or were bona fide tenants cultivating their lands as ordinary farmers should not be compulsorily disturbed, by inserting the limiting words, "except under special circumstances and with the consent of the Lord-Lieutenant." The object of his Amendment was, he said, to insert the compromise which the noble Earl the Lord President proposed in Committee on the Amendment moved by Lord Robertson. The noble Earl admitted that as a general rule a man who had been in occupation as a bona fide tenant, cultivating the farm in a proper way, should not be subject to compulsory removal; but at the same time he stated that there were exceptional cases where, in the interests of the peace of the district, it might be necessary to remove the planters with a view to reinstating the evicted tenants. Lord Robertson and other speakers on that side of the House had somewhat exaggerated the character and the motives of the planters. He had said that the planters were induced by public spirit to take up holdings on the Plan of Campaign estates, that they had answered the appeal made by the Government, and that they were a meritorious and well-to do class.
  LORD ROBERTSONsaid the latter part of the sentence was accurate, but the rest was imagination.
  LORD EVERSLEYsaid he did not think he had unfairly stated the general effect of what was said by speakers in the debate on Lord Robertson's Amendment. He did not mean to attribute this entirely to the noble Lord. But there was another view of these men. It was said that these were men of no substance, who were tempted to take farms on the Campaign estates not for public motives, but for purposes of gain. Very large offers were made to them to induce them to do so. Their rents were to be much less than those of the tenants who had been evicted. They were given, as a gift, the tenant-right in their holding, which was often equal to the value of the landlord's interest, and they received considerable sums from the Derelict Farms Association for the purpose of stocking their holdings. Many of these planters were not genuine farmers at all; they were nondescripts of various kinds. He spoke from experience, because he visited, many years ago, two of the Campaign estates in the possession of planters and inquired into their condition. He interviewed many of the planters, one of whom was in occupation of no fewer than 20 farms.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: What estates is the noble Lord referring to?
  LORD EVERSLEY: The Clongorey estate was one.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: You mean the Coolgreany estate.
  LORD EVERSLEY: The other was the Massereene estate.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: But they are both settled and quitted, and the tenants restored.
  LORD EVERSLEY,continuing, said that one planter whom he intervened occupied no fewer than twenty of the evicted farms, the extent of which was 900 acres and the rent £370 a year, which was 30 per cent.
  LORD ASHBOURNEwas sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but this was no part of the Bill. These two estates had been settled and the evicted tenants restored a long time ago.
  LORD EVERSLEYsaid he was merely taking this as an illustration of what the planters generally were. His impression, on visiting the estates, was that the planters as a rule were not substantial people. It was true that arrangements had been come to between the owners and the Estates Commissioners, and that the tenants on the greater number of these estates had been reinstated; but there remained two Plan of Campaign estates in respect of which no arrangement had been made—the Lewis and the Clanricarde estates. He understood that there were thirty-five tenants evicted from the Lewis estate, the owner of which had since leased the whole of the estate to her two sons, who were now in possession and carrying on the farms in a bona fide way. If the Bill had passed in its original form the only difficulty, in effecting an arrangement between the Estates Commissioners and the owner, which had been that of price would be removed. The owner and her sons were quite ready to sell and to make way for the evicted tenants, but the price they asked was excessive, and the Estate Commissioners had not thought it right to agree to it. If the Bill had passed in its original form the evicted tenants could have been reinstated on the payment of a reasonable price under compulsory purchase instead of the excessive price asked. But under the clause as it had been amended it would not be possible to deal otherwise than by agreement with the two tenants. They would have a veto on the transaction just as they now had, and therefore the Bill would have no effect in that case. He thought their Lordships would be of opinion that if these thirty-five tenants were to be reinstated, it was better that they should be reinstated upon the estate in which their former holdings were comprised rather than upon other land purchased compulsorily from some other landlord. The Clanricarde estate was of a similar type with this difference, that the owner in that case had never been willing to sell to the Estates Commissioners. He did not wish to enter into any of the circumstances affecting that estate. He did not think it would be desirable to do so, but he thought most people would agree that it would have been better for the peace of the district and for the whole of Ireland if that estate had been expropriated twenty-five years ago;

  1521
  and no doubt if this Bill should pass in its original form it would be expropriated. On the Clanricarde estate there were 125 evicted tenants, whose places were taken by thirty-five planters, making one planter to every four farms. But there were many planters on the estate who had in their occupation eight or ten farms from which the tenants had been evicted, and the same difficulty might occur there as in the case of the Lewis estate—namely, that the tenants who were in possession might refuse their consent to sell, and under the clause as it now stood it would not be possible to apply compulsion to them, because he believed that in all cases it was admitted that the planters were now occupying the farms and cultivating them in the manner contemplated in Lord Robertson's Amendment. He thought their Lordships would also agree that in that case it was desirable that the tenants should be reinstated on the estate where they had their former holdings. There were something like 1,800 other cases of evicted tenants not connected with Campaign estates which would come within the purview of the Bill, and it was in respect of those cases that his noble friend had said there might, and probably would, be some exceptional cases in which it might be desirable to apply compulsion.
  By way of illustration he would quote a case which came under his own observation. A tenant was evicted from a farm—not on a Campaign estate—under circumstances which the people of the district considered to be harsh and unjustifiable. A meeting of the local branch of the Land League was held, and a neighbouring farmer, who, he believed, had a holding next to the one in question, moved that the farm should be boycotted and that any tenant taking the farm should be subject to the boycott. Not long after it was rumoured that this very man had gone behind the backs of his fellow farmers and taken a lease of the farm. He was summoned before the Land League and questioned, but he strongly denied the report. Later it was found that it was actually the case that he had taken a lease from the owner at a low rent in consideration of the farm being boycotted. Thereupon he was ejected from the League and himself subjected to the boycott as a
  1522
  planter, a sneak, and a liar. This man, finding that he was boycotted, came to terms with the police, and went about accompanied by the police to various shopkeepers in the adjoining town, and when refused supplies he prosecuted these men and got them sentenced to imprisonment for conspiracy to boycott. He need hardly say that a case of this kind caused considerable odium in the district. That man was for many years boycotted and was the cause of much disturbance. That was the kind of case which might have occurred in other parts of Ireland. There were cases where men had been boycotted in respect of evicted farms for no less than twenty years, and it was desirable, in the interests of the district, that there should be a compulsory withdrawal of these men and that the tenants should be reinstated. The object of the Amendment was to enable the Estates Commissioners, with the consent of the Lord-Lieutenant, to apply compulsion in these very exceptional cases, but it would leave intact the provision that, as a general principle, if the planter were cultivating his land in a proper and reasonable way he should be left in possession. Their Lordships had gone a long way in admitting the principle of compulsion. They had admitted it in the case of the landlord, and it did not seem to him a very great step to extend it in some of these exceptional cases to tenancies.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 23, to insert, after the word 'manner,' the words 'except under special circumstances and with the consent of the Lord-Lieutenant.'"—(Lord Eversley.)
  LORD CLONBROCK,referring to the Lewis estate, said that when the Mathew Commission was sitting, it was stated in the evidence that there were forty-six evicted tenants. Twelve were reinstated voluntarily before the Report of that Commission was issued, and twelve more had been reinstated since then, leaving twenty-two. Yet now it was announced that there were thirty-five of them to be restored. That showed the extraordinary way in which evicted tenants grew in number as time went on. So far from the sum asked for being exorbitant, the offer of the Estates Commissioners to Mrs. Lewis

  1523
  for the two farms held by her sons, which they refused to increase, amounted only to eighteen and-a-half years purchase on the rent, entirely leaving out the occupation interest; and eighteen and-a-half years purchase was three years less than the average years purchase of first term rents in the county of Galway. It could not be said that declining to accept such an offer was holding out for exorbitant terms. He could not speak of the Clanricarde property from personal knowledge, but he understood that the planters had worked their farms well and laid out money on them
  LORD ROBERTSONhoped their Lordships would not be diverted by any of Lord Eversley's anecdotes from the terms of the Amendment, which would really do away with the whole effect of what they had already decided. The second of its remarkable qualifications was the more interesting from the events of the last few days. The consent of the Lord-Lieutenant was required—he presumed when the Lord-Lieutenant was not occupied with his Parliamentary duties. He could not suppose that even the most credulous would regard that as a very efficient protection. He would like to pay a tribute to his old Parliamentary colleague in the House of Commons, Lord Eversley; the generous sentiments that prevailed in that other place enabled him to say that there was no more diligent and successful discoverer of mares' nests.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I earnestly hope that the House will not accept this Amendment. The noble Lord who moved it seemed to me to be under a slight misapprehension with regard to the manner in which compulsion can be applied under this Bill. He said, "You apply compulsion to the landowner, and why not also apply it to the tenant?" The Bill as it now stands does admit of compulsion being applied to the tenant. What we on this side say is that to the tenants coming within the particular category of bona fide tenants cultivating their farms in a proper manner compulsion should not be applied. That protection Lord Eversley desires to modify, but if the noble Lord is correct in his view of the character and antecedents of the planters to whom he
  1524
  has alluded, very few of them are likely to receive the protection which the Bill promises. The noble Lord has described them as men of no resource, nondescripts, people who had taken up cheap land for sordid reasons, and he applied that description to the planter generally, basing his statement upon personal experience derived from one of those voyages of discovery which the special commissioner and the amateur detective are so fond of making in Ireland, sometimes to discover those interesting objects which Lord Robertson has referred to. That description of the planter as a class is, I venture to say, a most unjust one. I do not say these men took their farms from motives of pure patriotism, but as a class they are industrious men desiring to pursue an honourable vocation. They took land which other tenants had thrown up, at a rent which other tenants had refused to pay, they cultivated the land, many of them with great success, and I am happy to say that many of them are established safely and beyond the reach of this Bill, having acquired their farms under the Act of 1903. But there are some who are not yet in that position, and to these we desire that this moderate measure of protection should be given.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I need hardly say that I shall support the Amendment of my noble friend, because it is couched in precisely the terms which I suggested in Committee. My noble friend gave certain instances, which seemed to me of an extremely conclusive character, of what would probably be the result if this Amendment is not carried. Noble Lords opposite, I think, were quite right from their point of view in making no allusion to the particular instances named by my noble friend, because they would have found it exceedingly difficult, if they had attempted to examine them, to sustain the line of argument which they have adopted. What did my noble friend say? He alluded in the first instance to certain estates where, owing to the good sense of all the parties, matters have been amicably settled. But it is perfectly evident that as the Bill stands, without the words which my noble friend proposes to insert, no means would exist of settling the dispute by means of this Bill. It is to meet cases where all the parties do not show good sense in settling disputes that the Amendment is

  1525
  devised. It appears to me to be quite conclusive that there are a considerable number of cases which ought to be dealt with under this Bill, but which cannot be touched if the Bill remains as it is. I may say perhaps, in passing, that the phrase suggested, I think, by Lord Lansdowne does not seem to be the most fortunate that could have been used. If he had stated "according to the ordinary rules of good husbandry," or something of that kind, the term would have been more preferable than the rather remarkable adjective, new to me, which is found in the Bill. But that is a mere drafting criticism. What we do say is that it will be impossible for the Estates Commissioners to deal with the most difficult cases if the Bill stands as it is. My noble friend mentioned cases in which a whole number of evicted farms had been handed over to one imported planter. He might, and very probably would, come under the description "bona-fide tonant"; but if this question is to be settled, and we all agree it is to be settled, something must be done to meet the cases of those particular evicted tenants, and it will not be done unless the provision in the Bill is thus amended.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONasked, in reference to the remarks made by Lord Eversley,
  whether it would not be a negation of everything the Government proposed to do in other cases, if the evicted tenants on the Clanricarde estate were returned to their former holdings. He only knew of the case from public sources, but he understood that there were 160 evicted tenants, and the land they occupied was now held by forty-five tenants, the uneconomic holdings having been enlarged into economic holdings, and all the old landmarks having been obliterated. Was it conceivable that, because the Clanricarde estate had been before the public mind, it would be wise to remove those forty-five men who had been farming successfully, and put others in their place? When there was a Congested Districts Board working in one direction amalgamating holdings, were these men to be put out of their economic holdings because those who had been evicted wished to be put back in their old holdings? In citing this as an instance where it was necessary to go out of the ordinary course, the case for the protection of the planter had been made even stronger than it was before the noble Earl spoke.
  On Question, "That those words be there inserted," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 126.

  CONTENTS.

  Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Airedale, L.

  Headley, L.

  Allendale, L.

  Hemphill, L.

  Crewe, E. (L. President.)

  Castletown, L.

  Herschell, L.

  Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]

  Lucas, L.

  Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Courtney of Penwith, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  Nunburnholme, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

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

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Swaythling, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Eversley, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Weardale, L.

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Haversham, L.

  Welby, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Cawdor, E.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Argyll, D.

  Clarendon, E.

  Mansfield, E.

  Bedford, D.

  Cowley, E.

  Manvers, E.

  Richmond and Gordon, D.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Wellington, D.

  Dartrey, E.

  Mayo, E.

  Derby, E.

  Morley, E.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Devon, E.

  Morton, E.

  Camden, M.

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

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Nelson, E.

  Salisbury, M.

  Essex, E.

  Plymouth, E.

  Feversham, E.

  Rothes, E.

  Bradford, E.

  Haddington, E.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Camperdown, E.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Verulam, E.

  Carnwath, E.

  Ilchester, E.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Cathcart, E.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Westmeath, E.

  Wicklow, E.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Lovat, L.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Massey, L.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Moncrieff, L.

  Cross, V.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Falmouth, V.

  Clinton, L.

  Muskerry, L.

  Hampden, V.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Newton, L.

  Hill, V.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Oriel, L. (V. Masscreene.)

  Hood, V.

  Colchester, L.

  Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Collins, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Templetown, V

  Digby, L.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Abinger, L.

  Dunalley, L.

  Rathdonnell, L.

  Addington, L.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Rathmore, L.

  Amherst of Hackney, L.

  Dunleath, L.

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Estcourt, L.

  Sanderson, L.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Faber, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Atkinson, L.

  Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Sherborne, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Balfour, L.

  Forester, L.

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

  Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Barrymore, L.

  Herries, L.

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

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Borthwick, L.

  Kensington, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Bowes, L. (E. Strathmore and Kinghorn.)

  Kenyon, L.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Kilmaine, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Waleran, L.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Lamington, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Carew, L.

  Langford, L.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Lawrence, L.

  On Question, Amendments agreed to.

  LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON moved his alternative Amendment to Clause 2, sketched at a former sitting. The three objections that had been made to his previous Amendment were (1) that a Judge of Assize or a Judge of the King's Bench Division was not a good tribunal to decide upon such a question as the necessity of using compulsory powers; (2) that the decision of that question came at the end of the business instead of at the beginning, and that if the Judge ultimately decided that there was no case for the exercise of compulsory powers, the costs incurred, and the various proceedings taken would have been rendered useless; and (3) that such an appeal would interpose delay. He had endeavoured by this Amendment to meet those three objections. The Lord-Lieutenant in Council came in at the beginning of the procedure, and it would be necessary for the Estates Commissioners, before they put in force their compulsory powers, to get the consent of the Lord-Lieutenant. The Estates Commissioners would then be in the same position as every municipality in the three Kingdoms. He had made the Housing of the Working Classes Act of 1890 his model. The Amendment, if accepted, would bring the Bill into harmony with other legislation
  1528
  affecting cases where compulsory powers were given.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 25, after the word 'Act to insert the following new subsections:—(1) The Estates Commissioners shall frame a scheme or schemes, setting forth the lands proposed to be taken, and the purposes for which the same are required. (2) More estates or tracts of land than one may be included in any such scheme or schemes in any case where the estates or tracts of land are subject to the same or similar considerations, or where it is apprehended that the proposals of the Estates Commissioners are or may be open to the same or similar objections, provided that the questions likely to be involved are such as may be conveniently dealt with on one application. (3) Advertisements shall be published, and notices given in the manner and upon the persons mentioned in the seventh section of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890. (4) Upon compliance with the foregoing provisions with respect to the publication of advertisements and the service of notices, the Estates Commissioners shall present to the Lord-Lieutenant in Council, a petition praying that an order may be made confirming the said scheme or schemes. (5) On the hearing of the said petition any person whose lands are proposed to be taken compulsorily may appear at the hearing of such petition, and give evidence upon the question whether lands reasonably adequate for carrying out the said scheme or schemes in whole or in part may not be obtained by agreement on reasonable terms, and whether it is reasonable and proper that the lands

  1529
  mentioned in the scheme or schemes, or any of of them, should be compulsorily acquired for the purposes of the same. (6) The Lord-Lieutenant may make an order declaring the limits of the area to be comprised in the said scheme or schemes, and authorising the same to be carried into execution. (7) Such order may be made either absolute, or with such conditions and modifications as he may think fit, so that no addition be made to the lands proposed to be taken compulsorily. (8) The order so made shall be valid without being confirmed by Parliament, and shall, without prejudice in other respects to the provisions contained in the eighth subsection of this section, be deemed and taken to have finally and conclusively determined that the Estates Commissioners are unable to obtain by agreement, on reasonable terms, land for the purpose of the scheme or schemes as confirmed, and that lands may be acquired compulsorily for the purposes of the same. (9) The Lord-Lieutenant may make such order as he thinks fit in favour of any person whose lands were proposed to be taken compulsorily for the allowance of the reasonable costs, charges, and expenses properly incurred by him in opposing such scheme. (10) Rules may be framed by the Lord-Lieutenant in Council for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this section, in order to carry the said scheme or schemes into effect.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, the noble Lord's proposition is one of very great importance, and he has explained how he has come to make it. In addition to the intrinsic importance of the proposals contained in the Amendment, I am informed that if the House adopts it, it will have the distinction of having created the longest section to be found in any Act of Parliament. The House will remember that the noble and learned Lord threw out the possibility of proceeding by way of scheme where it was proposed that the Estates Commissioners should acquire land by compulsion. I quite admit the attraction of that idea, and it has received the most careful consideration of the Government with every wish to meet, if possible, the desires of the noble and learned Lord But this method of proceeding by scheme cannot be considered alone. It has to be considered in connection with the subsequent proceedings provided by the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord in Committee; and the effect of the two Amendments must be regarded jointly.
  Now, what would actually occur if the two Amendments of the noble and learned Lord were added to the Bill? The proposal is that a scheme should be
  1530
  framed by the Estates Commissioners, with a number of advertisements and notices, and on the publication of the scheme it would be open to any person involved to petition the Lord-Lieutenant in Council, and the whole scheme would be argued on the hearing of the petition at considerable length and in the manner in which a proposition under the Lands Clauses Act is heard before a Parliamentary Committee. All the pros and cons would be gone into, including, apparently, the question whether it was possible for the Estates Commissioners to obtain suitable land in any other place. That would be a long transaction, in some cases it might be a very long transaction, and it might, of course, happen that at the conclusion of the proceedings it was decided that a certain piece of land might be taken compulsorily. Then would follow further negotiations as to the price to be paid for it. That becomes a subject of a second appeal to a Judge, with a possibility of having to hear a great many of the same witnesses over again at a different place, and involving a second long transaction.
  I ask, is that a really possible plan of proceeding? I quite admit that if it had been found possible to include the whole transaction in a scheme, including the decision as to what the proper value of the land ought to be, there might much to be said for it. But that is obviously impossible, because it is quite clear that the Lord-Lieutenant in Council is not the authority by whom a question of value of that kind ought to be decided. I repeat that there is a distinct attraction in making all these questions a matter of preliminary dealing rather than of subsequent dealing, but if there are to be two entirely separate appeals, as the noble and learned Lord proposes, I fear that the whole operation of the Act would be so terribly interfered with and hampered that it would become a serious question whether the Act was worth having at all. So that it really comes to this, that if you are of opinion that these extremely elaborate safeguards are needed for all the compulsory transactions under this Bill you cannot have the Bill at all. It is not worth it. As I have pointed out, a very considerable number of transactions no doubt can take place in the course of years by agreement, and if you are not convinced that the matter

  1531
  is urgent and will not take our word for that, it is useless to attempt to deal with these transactions by the long and complicated procedure which the noble and learned Lord has proposed.
  Is it absolutely the case that there are no means of arriving at a fair safeguard for those who are thus expropriated in some other and less cumbersome way? I said on a former stage of the Bill something as to the Government's view of what would be reasonable in the way of appeal. I have not put anything down on the Paper, because the adoption by the House of the noble and learned Lord's first series of Amendments seemed to me to make that undesirable. The character of the Bill has been so much altered by the Amendments made at the instance of the noble and learned Lord, that it seems to me really better that these further Amendments should be inserted so that his whole scheme may be submitted to Parliament altogether. Consequently I have not put any Amendment on the Paper, but, as I think it would not be fair to allow the Bill to leave the House without telling your Lordships something more about the sort of appeal that we do propose, I will very briefly state what kind of appeal in our opinion would be a reasonable one and act as a full protection to those whose land may be taken.
  We agreed, by the original Bill, to an appeal on questions of law, and, in the course of debate, we agreed to give an appeal on questions of value, but there are certain other matters which are not probably questions of value upon which we think noble Lords opposite might very properly be met. Those are the questions coming under Clause 7. We are prepared to give a full appeal in any question arising under that clause. With regard to the earlier part of Clause 7, the question whether any land acquired compulsorily under the Act is or forms part of any demesne, home farm, town park, garden, pleasure-ground, or ground suitable for building sites, and so on, is a question of law. On the other hand, the questions in the latter part of the clause, whether the untenanted land forms part of any home farm or land immediately adjoining and customarily occupied with the owner's residence, and whether the land has been selected with due regard to the general situation and convenience of the
  1532
  owner's property, so as to diminish the value thereof as little as possible—those questions could not properly be taken as questions of law; and therefore unless we provide specially for them there would be no appeal.
  We desire to give a full appeal on all these matters, and if your Lordships will consider the matter you will see that the scope of the words in the clause is really very wide, and may include, for instance, some questions of sporting rights, which was mentioned by Lord Inchiquin. Apart from the Amendments which your Lordships have inserted, I should have been prepared to maintain that such a matter as that would be subject to appeal on the point that the value of the property might be diminished as little as possible. So also with the series of questions raised by Lord Clonbrock. We believe that the very wide terms of the latter part of Clause 7 would cover practically any kind of unreasonable dealing with land, supposing the Estates Commissioners to contemplate any such thing. It would also, even if you acquit the Estates Commissioners of any desire to act unreasonably, as I am sure your Lordships wish to do, prevent the possibility of their making a mistake by acting in a hurry. We believe that if your Lordships will carefully look at the latter part of Section 7 you will see that a complete appeal on that series of questions will really do all that is demanded by the equities of the case. I quite recognise the great care which the noble and learned Lord has given to the consideration of this question. We are certainly grateful to him for the attempt he has made to solve the problem; but, holding as we do that the procedure would be impossibly long and complicated if we accepted his proposition, we ask your Lordships very carefully to consider whether you will not ultimately be able to agree to the appeal of which I have sketched the outline—namely, an appeal which, we hope, will safeguard the landlord against any possible danger.
  LORD MUSKERRY: To whom is the appeal to be?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I am not in a position to give any details at the moment, but I can assure the noble Lord that it will be a full and satisfactory appeal.
  LORD MUSKERRY: Not an appeal to the Commissioners themselves, I hope.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid the statement of the Lord President was interesting and satisfactory in so far as it admitted to appeal matters arising on Clause 7. This question of appeal was one of two main points challenged, the other having reference to new tenants. The appeal was necessary to provide against errors of judgment and not necessarily mala fides on the part of the Commissioners. Sporting rights should include fisheries. He did not think the Amendment of his noble friend Lord Inchiquin received adequate recognition from the noble Earl the Lord President at the time it was presented. Under the law the term "sporting rights" included fisheries, and it was possible that the Estates Commissioners might take compulsorily land which abutted on a river. The right of the owner in such a case should be fully safeguarded, and he was glad that the noble Earl indicated that on these points there would be an appeal. The nature of the Appellate Tribunal was left open. It must, however, be understood by the Government that on the Opposition side it was expected to be a judicial appeal, an appeal to a Court composed of independent legal minds. But it was not enough to meet the wants and wishes of the landowners. The new tenants must also be safeguarded. The House of Lords would be deserving of the harshest measure of vituperation that was ever uttered against them if they were satisfied with Amendments in their own favour and left the new tenants, poor men who could not protect themselves, out in the cold. It was a monstrous thing that power should be given in an Evicted Tenants Bill to evict other tenants who might have been in possession of their farms, rearing families and paying their way, for twenty-five years. Were they to be expropriated under the Bill without check, warning, or appeal? The Government were determined that, whatever they did for the owners, they would do as little as they could for the new tenants, because the meaning of Lord Eversley's Amendment was to kill Lord Robertson's Amendment. If that was not its intention it certainly was its direct effect. The words "special circumstances" might mean anything, and the words "in the opinion of the
  1534
  Lord-Lieutenant" gave no security, for the Lord-Lieutenant, on being appealed to, would probably direct his private secretary to communicate with the Estates Commissioners, and ask what on earth he was to say on the subject. Was it intended to do anything to safeguard the position of these men? He thought it right to say that his own view was that they were covered by Lord Atkinson's Amendment, and as aggrieved Parties they would have the right of appeal. But was it intended by the Government that the new tenants should have no appeal, that they should be left to the mercy of the Estates Commissioners?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I should like to understand what the noble and learned Lord is driving at. Does he mean to ask me the question whether, if Lord Robertson's Amendment disappears from the Bill, as an alternative an appeal would be given in this matter? As the Bill now stands, with Lord Robertson's Amendment in, I suppose the planters are regarded as being perfectly safeguarded. At least no other Amendment has been moved from the opposite side of the House to safeguard them.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid the noble Earl in his speech on Lord Eversley's Amendment made no reference to the new tenants. That silence made it necessary to inquire what were the intentions of the Government in reference to these unfortunate new tenants.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The new tenants are practically taken out of the Bill by Lord Robertson's Amendment.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that that Amendment applied only to new tenants who were recognised to be bona fide tenants, but there was another class, said to be of the category of caretakers, who had no protection. Moreover, the provision in Lord Robertson's Amendment required to be safeguarded by an appeal. Supposing the Estates Commissioners made a mistake and declared that a farmer who came within that category was not a bona fide farmer, who was to decide that? Should not that man, who would otherwise be expropriated, be given a right of appeal? By what method of reasoning could it be suggested that in justice he should not have an appeal. Section 23

  1535
  of the Act of 1903 only enabled the Judicial Commissioner to consider such questions of law as were stated in their own words by the Estates Commissioners. It was no appeal; the Judicial Commissioner could not examine witnesses, and could not go into questions of mixed law and fact. It was, therefore, useless to point to Section 23 as adequate for the purpose. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had stated on a previous occasion that a writ of prohibition might be obtained by the tenant on a violation of the provisions in Clause 7. In his opinion he could not. The question in such cases always was, Did the inferior Court act in excess of jurisdiction or without jurisdiction? It might honestly be mistakenly held that land which formed part of a demesne did not so form part. That would not be a question for a writ of prohibition. If the Estates Commissioners said that though the land formed part of a demesne, home farm, town park, etc., they would expropriate it, then it would be a question of law and a writ of prohibition would come in. But that question would not arise. They were told that at some point there was to be an adequate appeal tribunal, composed in such a way that the noble Earl the Lord President thought all objection entertained by noble Lords on that side of the House would be removed. He awaited a further explanation from the Government on the point, and he hoped they would also have a clear statement as to the position of the new tenants.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): I had not intended to take any part in this discussion, but I will endeavour shortly to answer the noble and learned Lord. There is nothing I detest more than getting into conflict on points of law with any noble Lord who has legal experience. My opinion is that in the event of the land of any new tenant being taken contrary to the provision inserted by Lord Robertson, as the Bill stands, the Court would be able to interpose an estoppel.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: What Court?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Bill says that no land which is described in the clause shall be acquired compulsorily. Accordingly it is outside the power of the Estates Commissioners to acquire
  1536
  that land, because the statute says that that land shall not be acquired. There is no direct appeal allowed, but if the Estates Commissioners do anything that is ultra vires, they can, I believe, be estopped by a Court of law. That, I think, is the answer to what the noble and learned Lord has said.
  LORD ATKINSONsaid he would follow a good example, and not express any opinion on the Government's proposal before he had seen it. In the meantime, he begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think the course which my noble and learned friend has suggested is that which clearly is most convenient for the House. We are put rather in a difficulty, because we had most of us hoped that the noble Earl who has charge of the Bill would himself have laid before us, in outline at any rate, the manner in which he proposed to deal with this question of appeal. The noble Earl complained rather that my noble and learned friend's scheme was somewhat too abundant and copious in its form; our complaint of noble Lords opposite is the converse of that; we have no written suggestion from them, and the general explanation which has been offered to the House by the noble Earl, although up to a certain point reassuring, stopped short of that which we had ventured to hope for. Nevertheless, I hope that I am not wrong in thinking that His Majesty's Government are really prepared to give us that for which we ask, and to which we attach so much importance.
  I understand that we are to have a full appeal on the question of value, to begin with. Then I understand the noble Earl to admit that there are other questions outside the question of value as to which a similar full appeal is to be granted, and he named, as a case in point, questions arising under Clause 7. As to that, he told us that we might look for a full appeal on any question arising under Clause 7. I regard that as a very satisfactory statement on the part of His Majesty's Government. But I very much desire to emphasise what has been said by my noble and learned friend Lord Ashbourne as to the omission

  1537
  from the noble Earl's statement of all reference to the case of the planters. I am quite ready to take it from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that they are already adequately protected under the Bill but I hope there can be no room for misapprehension as to what is or is not adequate protection; and I have no doubt that when we have the whole of the proposal of His Majesty's Government before us, they will then be able to explain exactly the extent of the protection which will be afforded to the now tenants under their scheme.
  I wish to express one other hope. I trust the noble Earl will consider very carefully whether he cannot incorporate in his proposal provisions analogous to, if not identical with, those which are to be found in the first three sections of my noble and learned friend Lord Atkinson's Amendment. Those sections provide for a procedure under which the Estates Commissioners will be required to prepare schemes dealing with certain areas: schemes which are to be prepared after full local inquiry and which are to be published in such a manner that any persons who may consider themselves aggrieved in any way by them will have ample opportunities of objecting and making known their desire for modifications. I do not think that too much importance can be attached to a proposal of that kind. It seems to me most necessary that at an early stage all parties, and the public generally, should be satisfied that the arrangements for reinstatement and transfer are framed in a fair and equitable spirit, and in a manner not calculated to press too hardly on any particular district or individual. That, to my mind, is the great advantage of this procedure by means of public schemes.
  There is, of course, another point as to which we are still left completely in the dark: I mean the Court to which the appeal will lie. I confess that we were a little disappointed when the noble Earl told us that upon this most important matter he was not able to offer us any enlightenment this evening. While I make these moderate complaints, I fully admit, on the other hand, that the general effect of the statement of the noble Earl was to show that he and his colleagues desire to meet us in a reasonable spirit on a point to which we attach very great importance.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON moved the insertion of a new subsection in Clause 2, which, he said, was in no sense hostile to the Bill, and the object of which was to ensure that there should be no mistake as to the immediate payment of the compensation when it has been finally fixed. He submitted that when it was a case of compulsory purchase the usual practice in regard to such purchase should be followed, and that on the completion of the transaction the money should be at once paid.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, lines 39 to 42, to leave out subsection (10), and to insert the following new sub-section: (10) If no petition has been presented within the prescribed period, or if such petition has been withdrawn, or if all questions under all petitions have been determined, a binding agreement for the purchase of the lands shall be deemed to have been concluded between the Estates Commissioners and the owner thereof, and the Land Commission shall forthwith pay the amount of the compensation into the Bank of Ireland; and the Estates Commissioners may make an order vesting the lands in the Land Commission.'"—(Lord Monteagle of Brandon.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I quite appreciate the object of my noble friend's Amendment, but we cannot accept it in the form in which he has moved it. The Amendment provides that the—
  "Commission shall forthwith pay the amount of the compensation."
  In the first place, we do not agree to the word "compensation"; we regard it as the "price"—
  "And the Estates Commissioners may make an order vesting the lands in the Land Commission."
  It might happen that on appeal the price of the land would be so much enhanced that the Estates Commissioners would find it impossible to purchase. Yet if the noble Lord's Amendment is carried they would have to purchase the land in any case, even if a decision was given on appeal under Clause 7 that the land should not be purchased owing to its falling within the exemptions in that clause. If the price is raised on appeal to a figure which would make it impossible for the Commissioners to acquire the land without having to find from public funds so large a difference between the

  1539
  sum they pay and the sum at which they could resell as would make the transaction a thoroughly uneconomic one, they surely ought to be able to retire from the sale at that point, and one naturally assumes that the seller, being always the unwilling party, would have no objection to that course being taken. But there is another objection to the Amendment. It is hardly reasonable to provide that money should be paid at once out of public funds when the acquisition of the land would be unremunerative to the Commissioners. There is no intention whatever of hanging these matters up for an indefinite time, but we do not consider that the position is absolutely analogous to that, for instance, of a railway company taking land; that is an industrial enterprise, and the land is taken for the company's own objects. But if the noble Lord would agree to the words "shall be paid within a period of six months," we would be willing to accept an Amendment to that effect.
  LORD ATKINSONthought a period of six months would be reasonable. But that was not the real object which his noble friend had in view. Under the Lands Clauses Act, when a notice to treat was served it constituted an agreement between the promoter and the owner that he would take the land. What was left over was the fixing of the price, but there was the agreement that the promoter would take the land, and if he refused to do so, or if he delayed unreasonably in taking it, a suit could be instituted in the Court of Chancery to compel him to carry out the agreement. What his noble friend wished to guard against by his Amendment was that the Commissioners should have power to back out of their bargain after the compensation had been fixed. What chance would the owner have, in those circumstances, of working the land satisfactorily, in view of the disappointed tenants all round? As sure as that course was taken so sure would the landlord be subjected to all sorts of intimidation to force him to take a lower sum than that of the award. The Commissioners in this matter were playing the game of "heads I win, tails you lose." They could, after the notice had been served and the compensation fixed, retire from the whole transaction if the amount arrived at was higher than that
  1540
  of which they approved. He held that the Commissioners ought in these circumstances to be compelled to carry out the bargain.
  LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDONagreed to Lord Crewe's suggestion and substituted the words "within six months" for the word "forthwith." He would like to know if the noble Earl accepted the Amendment with that alteration.
  THE EARL of CREWE: The Amendment to which I agree is that the Land Commission shall, within a period not exceeding six months, pay the money into the Bank of Ireland, and the Estates Commissioners may make an order vesting the lands in the Land Commission.
  LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDONsaid that the Amendment as it appeared on the Paper, and as he had moved it, was in substitution for the two Amendments previously circulated, and to one of which the Lord President was evidently referring.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I do not accept the other Amendment. We quite agree that where the sale is actually effected by agreement between both parties the purchase money should be paid within six months, but we do not agree to making it a binding agreement on the Estates Commissioners to deal at any price which may be fixed by the Court of Appeal.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The House is at a disadvantage because the Amendment, as printed, is in a different form. I understand that two points are raised. The first one is whether there is to be prompt payment. Lord Monteagle proposes that payment should take place forthwith. My noble friend the Lord President does not agree to that, but will accept "within a period of six months." That deals fairly with the first point. The second point is, Are the Estates Commissioners to be placed in the position of being able to agree that certain lands are to be taken compulsorily, subject to arbitration, and then, when the price has been fixed, to back out and to say they will not take the land because the price is excessive? My noble and learned friend Lord

  1541
  Atkinson has shown that a retreat of that kind on the part of the Estates Commissioners at the very last moment would put the vendor in an intolerable position. I think there is a good deal of force in my noble and learned friend's suggestion.
  LORD DENMANpointed out that the subsection which Lord Monteagle desired to introduce completely contradicted Subsection 7 of Clause 2.
  LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDONsaid that if his Amendment were carried Subsection (6) would, of course, have to be amended.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment proposed to Lord Monteagle's Amendment is to omit the word "forthwith" in line 6, in order to insert the words "within six months." I think it would be convenient that I should put that Amendment first, as it is generally accepted, and after that has been carried I will put the Amendment standing on the Paper as so amended.
  On Question, That the word "forthwith" stand part, resolved in the negative.
  On Question, That the words "within six months" be here inserted, resolved in the affirmative.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment I now have to put is to leave out the present Subsection (10) and to insert the following new subsection—
  "If no petition has been presented within the prescribed period, or if every such petition has been withdrawn, or if all questions under all petitions have been determined, a binding agreement for the purchase of the lands shall be deemed to have been concluded between the Estates Commissioners and the owner thereof, and the Land Commission shall within six months pay the amount of the compensation into the Bank of Ireland, and the Estates Commissioners may make an order vesting the lands in the Land Commission."
  THE EARL OF ARRAN THE EARL OF ARRAN moved an Amendment similar to that moved by the Earl of Mayo in Committee providing that on the requirement of the owner by notice to the Estates Commissioners the reinstated tenant should have the
  1542
  status of a present tenant and not of a purchaser. The objection to the course proposed in the Bill was that it would make patchwork and cause great discontent. The noble Earl the Lord President had suggested that the fact of discontent on the part of the other tenants would lead to their purchasing. On first hearing that sounded very plausible, but on further consideration he did not think the result would be so advantageous, because the tenants would only consent to buy on precisely the same terms as the Estates Commissioners had sold to the evicted tenants, and in disturbed parts of the country the landlord might not get one penny in rent until he had agreed to sell on those terms. That would mean that the whole of the estate would be compulsorily sold at a price fixed by the Estates Commissioners. In that way a price would be fixed for the whole estate which might have been calculated on a derelict farm. He did not think the Estates Commissioners would object to this Amendment, as they had in some cases offered to reinstate evicted tenants as present tenants. The Amendment was not aimed at preventing evicted tenants being reinstated, but was designed to remove possible discontent.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 42, after the word 'order' to insert the words 'Provided always that in every case in which the owner of the said land shall, by notice in writing to the Estates Commissioners within the prescribed time, so require, the person or persons whom it is proposed to place in possession of said lands shall be placed there with the status of present tenants instead of purchasers, and shall from the date of being so placed in possession be subject to such rent as the Land Commission failing agreement between the owner and such person or persons, may upon the application of either party determine to be the fair rent of such land pursuant to the provisions of the Land Law (Ireland) Acts, 1881 to 1896.'"—(The Earl of Arran.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Earl will excuse me if I do not reply at length, because what I had to say on this matter I said in reply to Lord Mayo when he moved a similar Amendment in Committee. The noble Earl dealt with one set of arguments that I used—namely, what I may call the commonsense argument that, in the first place, the Commissioners obviously would not desire to reinstate a tenant in the middle of a tenanted estate if it was likely to cause

  1543
  friction of the kind the noble Earl fears, and the further fact that a tenant being placed in this way in the middle of an estate might in some cases lead to purchase arrangements for the estate as a whole being arrived at. The noble Earl did not deal with the practical difficulty I mentioned, which was that persons returned in this way as present tenants cannot by law receive any assistance. The particular sort of evicted tenants whoso case this Bill is intended to meet are in the main people without any particular means, and I am sure the noble Earl will agree with me that you could not do a worse thing for a landlord or for an estate, than to put an evicted tenant back without some kind of equipment, because he would not be able to pay his rent and would soon become an evicted tenant again, and this would not contribute to the settlement of the question. I appreciate the hypothetical difficulty raised by the noble Earl, but I do not believe it will occur in practice. The last objection I have mentioned seems to me overwhelming against the acceptance of the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid that noble Lords from Ireland felt very strongly on this matter. The object of the Amendment was to guard against the danger of making a price against themselves, and one at which the other tenants would demand to purchase. He knew there was the question of the bonus to be considered, but he maintained that the position of the landlord remained very unsatisfactory.
  LORD DENMANcommented on the statement of the noble Earl that landlords would have to standardise the price by that paid by the one evicted tenant who was put back on the estate, and said that where the planter had been placed on a farm it had not been necessary to standardise the rents at the figure derived from that particular planter.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think the case which has been put by my noble friend behind me is really a very hard one, because there can be no doubt that in many cases it would be a great hardship and inconvenience that in the middle of an estate which was in a peaceful condition, with nothing but good feeling between landlord and
  1544
  tenant, one of these evicted tenants should be reinstated, and replaced, as my noble friend has pointed out, on conditions which give him a position considerably more advantageous than that enjoyed by all his neighbours, who perhaps, during the whole time have been paying their rent regularly. While I say that, I am bound to add that I can scarcely advise my noble friend to press his Amendment to a division. I regard the matter as of some importance, but not as of first-rate importance; and I think my noble friends behind me have shown great judgment in concentrating their attention upon points which really were of cardinal importance. This being of less importance, I would counsel my noble friend not to put the House to the trouble of dividing.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD DUNBOYNEdrew attention to what he considered an inconsistency between Clause 5, Sub-clause 3, and the provisions of the earlier part of the Bill. The sub-clause in question began—
  "all costs and expenses in the opinion of the Judicial Commissioners necessarily and properly incurred by any petitioner in respect to a petition under this Act or by any new tenant on a hearing before the Estates Commissioners,"
  while in the earlier part of the Bill, in the Appeal clauses, the costs were to be dealt with by the Judge of Appeal. In order to remedy this inconsistency, he suggested that the following words should be inserted—at what particular point he thought did not much matter—"except as hereinbefore provided, the Courts shall have discretion."
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Perhaps the noble Lord will kindly put it on the Paper for tomorrow. I have very little doubt that he is perfectly right; but I rather dislike accepting Amendments, even from him, offhand.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON,in the absence of the Marquess of Londonderry, moved to leave out Clause 6. He said it was necessary to make that Motion for the technical reason that without a Motion in their Lordships' House it would not be practicable for His Majesty's Government to introduce in the other House a limitation of the clause which the Lord President had announced they desired to

  1545
  introduce for reducing the amount of the bonus to be applied for the purposes of the Bill to £100,000. Therefore, as a technical matter—and he believed in doing this he had the consent of His Majesty's Government—he begged to move the omission of the clause.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out Clause 6."—[Viscount Midleton.]
  THE EARL OF CREWE: We entirely agree to this course, which is the only possible one, because if it were not followed the other House could not really deal with the clause at all.
  LORD CLONBROCK*LORD CLONBROCK moved an Amendment to extend the restriction on the acquisition of land to land possessing an exceptional or accommodation value to the owner in connection with his farming. He explained that that Amendment and the other which stood in his name were the same Amendments as those which he had proposed when the Bill was in Committee. The noble Earl the President of the Council had then said that he would consult with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant, to see if any words could be introduced to meet part of the difficulty which he had pointed out. That was, he thought, more particularly in connection with his second Amendment referring to "any home farm." In addition to that he wished again to press that land which possessed any exceptional or accommodation value to the owner should be exempted from the operation of the Commissioners. He had given the noble Earl notice that he did not intend to move the words "or owing to proximity to a town or otherwise," thinking it sufficient to exempt the land which possessed "exceptional or accommodation value to the owner." He had been advised by a noble and learned friend who was more skilled than himself in the strange and mysterious language of Acts of Parliament that it would be prudent to insert after the word "possesses" the words "for any reason," so that it would read "or which possesses for any reason an exceptional or accommodation value," and so on. And, although he himself could not see
  1546
  any particular force in those words, he wished to insert them. But he wished to point out the difference there was between "exceptional" and "accommodation" value. In a work compiled by the right hon. Gentleman the present Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. Cherry, on the Land Act, he had pointed out the difference. He did not think that the learned Gentleman had used the word "exceptional," but he had pointed out the difference between "proximity" and "accommodation" value; and had pointed out that the land might be valuable when in proximity to a town from the increased prices which anybody farming it would receive by reason of that proximity and for various other reasons, whereas accommodation land would be that which the people of the town were in the habit of using. He wished to exempt any land with any exceptional value of the kind; and, among others, as he had mentioned when the Bill was in Committee, land which was held and worked by the landlord in connection with his home farm. Such land might be at some distance, or it might be at a considerable distance, and it might be of considerable extent, but it formed part of the landlord's system of farming, it entailed a great expenditure on the landlord's part in the employment of a number of labourers, and it was valuable for both tillage and also sometimes for what was called "winterage," where animals were put in to winter. If that land were taken away, or if part of it were taken away, it dislocated the whole system of farming, and the landlord would probably have to give it up altogether. That was not only a great loss and a great injustice to him, but it was a serious loss to the neighbourhood, from the loss of employment to his labourers, and also from the loss of the advantage now gained by having farms properly worked as an example to the people—who very much needed it—as to how land ought to be treated. He therefore moved to insert the words which he had read, and also in line 18 to leave out the words "immediately adjoining and"—which of course referred to the home farm and demesne.
  As to home farms, he had mentioned on the Committee stage the case of a noble Lord a Member of that House—Lord Gough—who had an

  1547
  extremely picturesque demesne—a really beautiful place—in the county of Galway. But, and perhaps for that reason, the land was not fit for tillage. He had held for years in connection with his demesne a tillage farm some distance off, but the Commissioners, in the exercise of the great powers they had in that particular way, refused to recognise the rest of his property, though it was very extensive, as an "estate" unless he threw in this tillage farm, and he had had to do so very much to his inconvenience. He submitted that it could make no difference whether the land was "immediately adjoining," and whether there was only a fence between, or whether there were a number of fields intervening. It was worked together with the demesne, and it was exceedingly hard that the landlord should be deprived of it. As the Estates Commissioners exercised the indirect compulsory powers they now had in so stringent a manner, it was much to be feared that they would adopt a similar course with the much extended power of compulsion conferred upon them by this Bill. He begged to move the Amendment as it stood with the exception that he desired to leave out after "in connection with his farm" the words "or owing to its proximity to a town or otherwise"; and in line 18 to leave out the words "immediately adjoining and" so as to let it run "any home farm or land customarily occupied with his residence."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 9, line 12, after the word 'sites,' to insert the words 'or which possesses for any reason an exceptional or accommodation value to the owner in connection with his farm.'"—(Lord Clonbrock).
  LORD ARDILAUNdesired to support the Amendment, and said that perhaps their Lordships would not consider it unduly egotistical on his part if he instanced his own case, as it had a bearing on this point, and was typical of many others which existed. He farmed between 3,000 and 4,000 acres, most of which he had inherited, some of which he had bought, and some of which he had acquired in consequence of moving (at their own request) tenants from it to an adjoining estate, giving them double the amount of land which they had before, and subsequently selling the
  1548
  holdings to them. He wished to point out that if any land were taken from him it would doom his farming. If the mountainous part were taken, he would have no place for his stock in summer, and if the lowlands were taken, he could not carry on his farming at all. He had created this farming industry himself, and he thought it would be a very hard thing that having put very large sums of money into the farms which he held in his own hands, he should be at the mercy of Commissioners, or the Appeal Court, or anyone else, who would have power to take them from him, and to destroy the industry which he had created at large cost, expense, and trouble. It would be a loss, not only to himself, but to the poor people who were engaged in carrying on this work—herders, carters, and labourers. He would be obliged immediately to disemploy these people, and to give up farming. These farms were in a district which was well known in the West of Ireland. It was a wild country, and a country in which employment was very scarce, and where there were many people, besides those men whom he employed, who were desirous of having work. The proposal in the clause was, he thought, very unfair, because what was proposed to be done was to be done for the purpose of putting in people who had failed everywhere else, either through their own fault or through the fault of those agitators who had urged them on to their own ruin, and these men were to come in and injure the men who at present had employment, and were satisfied with their condition. That was an unjust thing, and one which he thought their Lordships would probably not sympathise with. He might add that he had no evicted tenants, and therefore any evicted tenants who were brought in would be brought in from other estates, perhaps a hundred miles off. He would like to put what appeared to him a fairly parallel case. Supposing that in England a man created an industry, say a factory, and perhaps brought it to a successful state of working, and suppose that in another factory perhaps 100 miles off the employees struck for higher wages, and the whole thing broke up. Would it be fair that the factory which had been a success should be saddled with those

  1549
  people from the other factory, and that they should be told that they were to have the advantages of the factory which was a success, because they had struck and were out of employment? He thought that was a very fair parallel to draw, and he really did not think that the House ought to consent to force landlords to give up an industry which had been started—as in his case—at considerable trouble and great expense.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I am sorry we cannot accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, and I think that both he—because he is always fair-minded—and the rest of the House must admit that the situation is somewhat altered by the announcement I made of an appeal in all these cases. If the noble Lord will look at the last words of the clause, he will see that it was provided that the Estates Commissioners should "avoid all interference with the demesne and amenity of residence of the owner of the land, or with any home farm or land immediately adjoining and customarily occupied with his residence, and land shall be selected" (this is the point I particularly wish to draw attention to) "with due regard to the general situation and convenience of the owner's property so as to diminish the value thereof as little as possible." Take the case of the noble Lord who has just sat down (Lord Ardilaun). If he were able to show, as I have no doubt he could, that the general situation and convenience of his property would be interfered with by any part being abstracted from the large amount which he has in hand, or that the value thereof would be diminished, he would have, I should have supposed, an extremely good case. Now even supposing that the Estates Commissioners, inspired by diabolical sentiments, wished to pick out the best part of the noble Lord's farm, it does surely alter the case if an appeal of the kind I have mentioned is given, and in our opinion the interests of the landlord are sufficiently protected. After all, we have not the slightest wish to attack the landlords, or to compromise them in any way. There is no conceivable reason why we should, because we wish to settle the whole of this question of evicted tenants on the most pacific lines, and if possible to establish contentment in the matter, and in our opinion this Clause 7, strengthened by an appeal, gives the
  1550
  most absolute protection to the landlords in every conceivable way.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONwas sorry that the Lord President did not see his way to make the concession of the words which the noble Lord behind him had moved, and he pointed out that although he (the Earl of Crewe) was of opinion that the words in the Bill sufficiently safeguarded the landlord's rights in that respect, yet there was very grave doubt as to whether the words had as great force as the noble Earl had assigned to them. They were not endeavouring, by this Amendment, to encroach upon the main object and purpose of the Bill as regarded untenanted land, but if he might be allowed to reinforce what had already fallen so forcibly from Lord Ardilaun he would like to do it by giving one instance to their Lordships which had come to him that morning in a letter from Lord Ashtown, written after the occurrence of yesterday at his house—an occurrence which he was sure every Member of their Lordships' House deplored. In that letter he pointed out what would be the effect, as he was advised, upon him of the Bill as it at present stood. Lord Ashtown, as he had pointed out to their Lordships on a former occasion, was probably the largest owner of untenanted farm land in Ireland; he farmed 4,000 acres of land in the West and had done so for a great number of years, and he stated that—
  "In the West of Ireland there are two sorts of land—summer land and winter land. I farm about 1,400 acres of winter land which is light rocky land, no good at all for young stock, but most valuable for old stock."
  He proceeded to say—
  "I cannot but believe that if any of my summer land be taken away it will decrease the value of my winter land. I do not think anyone in their senses would interfere with the winter land, because it cannot be tilled on account of rocks, and there is no water on it in summer at all. All I want is fair play, so that I may make the best of my land when I can, and drive plenty of labour to the people about. I am not an ordinary grazier, as I breed the whole of my own stock."
  He thought their Lordships would feel that that was a case where consideration should be shown, not merely to the interests of the landlord, but to those of the whole locality, which, if these two classes of land were divided, would certainly suffer. And yet that was precisely

  1551
  one of the cases in which the Estates Commissioners said the other day, with regard to the whole of Galway, that every acre of untenanted land in that county ought to be taken. The words which his noble friend Lord Clonbrock proposed—"which possesses an exceptional or accommodation value to the owner"—were specially designed to meet all cases of that character and certain other cases which were familiar to all their Lordships which must occur—cases where land was not precisely building land or a home farm but was in the neighbourhood of a town—he could mention many such places—and had an accommodation value to the owner which was not provided for in the Bill.
  LORD INCHIQUINdesired to say one word, as being even a larger farmer than Lord Ashtown. He had close upon 5,000 acres in his own hands at the present moment. When he said in his own hands, he meant that he was actually farming that amount himself; the actual amount he had in his own hands was nearly 6,000 acres. A great deal of that land was at a distance from his home, but was nevertheless most important to him for the purposes of farming. He sent most of his cattle away in the winter to land which Cromwell had described as not having trees enough to hang a man, water enough to drown him, or earth enough to bury him. At the same time he sent all his cattle up to that land, and they came home fatter than those he had at home feeding on hay. The whole of that land was a sheet of rock from end to end—many noble Lords knew it well—and on the small patches of earth between those rocks, strange as it seemed, valuable cattle would fatten in the most extraordinary way. He merely mentioned that incidentally to show that those distant lands were equally valuable to him as the lands immediately adjoining his residence. Last year he had saved about 600 ton of hay. Naturally that could not be grown inside his demesne, and therefore it was absolutely essential to him to have land outside of it. With that large amount, no doubt he could find untenanted land which he would be willing to give to the Commissioners, but he objected very strongly to their coming down and taking his best parts. As he had told their Lordships on Committee stage, he received as much as £6 10s. per acre
  1552
  for meadowing last year, and he objected very strongly to anyone having a right to come in at any place and take any land they might think fit. He was therefore highly in favour of the present Amendment, and urged its adoption.
  LORD DUNBOYNEsaid it was a most usual thing for people to have farms at considerable distances away to which they sent their cattle. It seemed to him that if the Amendment was not accepted by His Majesty's Government the proper title of the Act would be "An Act to increase the number of absentee landlords in Ireland." It seemed to him that that sort of legislation would drive out of the country all the people who were most valuable to it, which, he was sure, was not the intention of the Government, although it might possibly be of some of the people behind them—and whether or not that was for the benefit of Ireland he would not say. His own impression was that the people of Ireland were as loyal to the landlords as anyone else if they were only left alone.
  THE EARL OF CEEWE: I do not propose to divide the House against the Amendment, but we do not accept it.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 9, line 18, to leave out the words 'immediately adjoining and.'"—(Lord Clonbrock)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I think I need only say that we cannot accept this Amendment for the same reason that we I were unable to accept the last, namely, that we consider that any ease of hardship such as that mentioned by the noble Lord—assuming, of course, a real hardship to exist, which no doubt it did in that particular case—would be covered by the appeal which we have given; because it is important to notice that the two things are not absolutely analogous. It is quite possible, in that particular case, that the Estates Commissioners may refuse to declare a property an estate without the addition of that particular farm, but that is by no means the same thing as their saying they will take that particular farm or any part of it compulsorily under this Act if it is a hardship to the landlord to do so.
  LORD INCHIQUIN,on Clause 9, said that he wished to make three small alterations in the sporting clause, two of which were merely verbal, and would make very little difference, but after consultation with his noble friend Lord Denman he proposed to move his Amendment in a form more acceptable to His Majesty's Government. The clause began, "Where any land is compulsorily purchased or taken." He proposed to leave out the words "purchased or taken," and to put in the word "acquired." He thought nobody could form any grave objection to that, as it was merely a difference in the wording. The clause went on "Where any land is compulsorily acquired under this Act all sporting rights hitherto enjoyed by the vendor," and so on. In place of those words he would prefer to put in the words "therefore vested in the owner of the land." He called their Lordships' attention to one word in that, namely, the word "vested." Vested might refer to two things: either tenanted land or untenanted land. In the case of untenanted land undoubtedly the sporting rights were vested in the owner; but in the case of tenanted land they might possibly not be vested in the owner, and very often they were not so vested in Ireland, because it was in many cases not customary to put in a lease the fact that the fishing and sporting rights were reserved, although they might possibly have been reserved. There was just a slight concession there which he did not think need give any great anxiety. The Bill applied to two classes of land, tenanted land and untenanted land—the untenanted land did not matter—and he thought that if their Lordships accepted the words be proposed no harm would be done to any interests in Ireland. The remaining words were those which came after "if he so desires," viz., "remain vested in him notwithstanding such purchase." He proposed to leave out the words "remain vested in him notwithstanding such purchase"; and to insert the words "be expressly reserved to him." Those words equally carried the point; and he was told by his noble friend that they might make it a little more acceptable to His Majesty's Government. He begged to move.
  Amendments moved—
  "In page 9, line 25, to leave out the words 'purchased or taken,' and insert the word 'acquired.'"
  "In line 26, to leave out the words 'hitherto enjoyed by the vendor' and insert the words 'therefore vested in the owner of the land.'"
  "In line 27, to leave out the words 'vested in him notwithstanding such purchase' and insert the words 'be expressly reserved to him.'"—(Lord Inchiquin.)
  LORD DENMANsaid that so far as the Government were concerned, they regarded these Amendments as of a purely drafting nature. They improved the form of the clause, and of course the Government were perfectly prepared to accept them, but, he must add, without prejudice to any course that might be taken in the other House in regard to that particular clause.
  LORD ASHBOURNEpointed out that the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council had expressly said that fishing rights were included in sporting rights.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I do not think the noble and learned Lord is quoting any words of mine. I mentioned fishing rights as a point which in my opinion would be covered, where damage was done to the owners of the property, by the appeal given under another clause.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid he had mentioned in his few remarks in Committee that under the term "sporting rights" fishing might be the most valuable thing in Ireland—the best places on the Shannon for salmon—and the Estates Commissioners might take a piece of land which abutted on the Shannon at that place; that showed the tremendous importance of seeing that they were adequately protected.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved the insertion, in Clause 14, of a proviso giving the original vendor the first option of re-purchasing surplus lands acquired under the Act, and not required for the purposes of the Act. He would not detain their Lordships at any length because he had said all he wished to say about the Amendment in Committee. It was practically the same Amendment as

  1555
  he had moved in Committee, but it had been re-drafted in order to try and meet the wishes of the Government. The Government were very difficult to please, but he sincerely hoped that he had satisfied them on the present occasion. He begged to move.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 10, line 19, after '1903,' to insert 'or may be re-sold to the vendor: Provided that no such land shall be sold to any person other than the original vendor, unless it shall have been offered to such vendor at a price corresponding to the price paid for any portion of such acquired land as has been re-sold under this Act, and unless he shall have failed to accept the said offer within a period of one month from the date thereof.'"—(Earl of Donoughmore.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I am sorry not to be able to agree with the noble Earl, because I feel that the drafting of this Amendment must have caused him at least one sleepless night, if not more, owing to its extreme elaborateness and complication. But, honestly, I cannot see what is the meaning, or what can be taken to be the meaning, of the phrase "offered to such vendor at a price corresponding to the price paid for any portion of such acquired land as has been resold." I am entirely unable to appreciate what is meant by the words "price corresponding" and so on. What is going to happen under these circumstances? A piece of land has been acquired by the Commissioners at a price. A certain part of it is not wanted, and therefore the original landlord, the vendor, would like to have it back. But he is to get it back at a price corresponding to that at which the rest has been sold. Does the noble Lord mean that it is necessarily a proportionate ratio per acre, because it seems to me in that event he might be in a very bad case. It might be a very cheap piece that was not required and a very valuable piece which would be kept by the Commissioners and he would have to take the cheap piece back apparently at the average price of the whole. Or, again, the rule might operate in the opposite case far too greatly to the landlord's advantage, I confess that I think it would be better if the noble Lord would strike out the whole of the latter part of his Amendment, and agree to leave it in these terms, "or may be resold to the person for whom it was acquired." The price would then become a matter of
  1556
  ordinary bargain, and I think in that ease the land could probably be secured at a fair price.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid he would be willing to accept that, provided the original vendor was given the first choice. He thought that should be done, and that it should not be left to the Estates Commissioners to say whether they would sell the land back to the vendor or sell it to somebody else. He quite appreciated the difficulty that was in the mind of the noble Earl, and it would be better, no doubt, to leave the price to bargain.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid he did not differ from that, subject to this—that he thought it was a legitimate Amendment of his noble friend to deal with this case, because it was to prevent improvidence on the part of the Commissioners in getting a great deal too much land compulsorily, and then being overstocked and working it off in a way to suit their own will—he did not use the word "will" offensively, but their own unmeasured discretion; and therefore the original vendor was entitled to say, "If you have taken too much land compulsorily I am entitled to purchase it back in priority to anyone else." Then there was the question about terms. He had not thought it out, but, supposing there were 100 acres bought by the Commissioners, ten of which were not wanted, the original vendor should, in his opinion, get that back at the same price as that given for the land all round; he should be given back his land at the same price at which it was taken from him. He thought some words ought to be inserted to show that the original vendor was entitled to the first offer, and also, if possible, words indicating that the price he received should be the measure at which he should take the land back again. That, however, was a question for his noble friend.
  THE EARL OF MAYOinquired whether the noble Lord would agree to give the vendor a pre-emption.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Supposing it is possible to arrive at an agreement?
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Yes.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I have no objection to that, but I think the noble Earl had better bring up the Amendment to-morrow.
  The EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid that he would do so.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Might it not run something like this: "Unless it shall have been offered to such vendor at a price corresponding pro rata to that at which it was acquired"?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I can only speak by the indulgence of the House, but I very much doubt whether that would be an acceptable suggestion. Supposing the Estates Commissioners acquire a considerable tract, including some very bad land and some very good land, and then find that they do not want all the very bad land and they hand some of it back to the landlord. Then the unfortunate landlord, under the suggestion which has been made, will have to pay the pro rata price, and will thus be paying far too much. On the other hand, if the opposite case occurs, he may be getting some of the very good land back far too cheaply. I think it must be left to agreement.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Surely the good land and the bad land will be valued separately.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that if nothing was clone it would be the Estates Commissioners making their own bargain but as he had already spoken to the Amendment he was unable to amplify the point.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid that he would not press the Amendment; and he would take an opportunity of discussing the point with his noble friend between then and to-morrow.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO moved the insertion of a new clause after Clause 17 to the effect that the provisions of the Act should continue and remain in force for two years after the passing thereof and no longer. He desired to put some finality to the operations
  1558
  of the Bill; and he believed the Government were willing to do so. He thought it would help matters very much in Ireland to have this question settled. He spoke on his own behalf and on behalf of a great many people in Ireland whom their Lordships neither saw nor heard of, all of whom really wanted to have finality to this question. The Estates Commissioners had now issued their Report, and their Lordships had put into the Bill the number of tenants that were to be put back. Now, he and those who thought with him asked, with all moderation, that the Bill should come to an end in two years. That, they thought, was a sufficient time for the Commissioners to deal with the matter. He thought he need say no more on the point, as he believed the noble Lord in charge of the Bill was anxious that there should be a time limit.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert the following new Clause: '18. The provisions of this Act shall continue and remain in force for two years after the passing thereof, and no longer.'"—(The Earl of Mayo.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I think it would give general satisfaction to everybody concerned, including the Estates Commissioners themselves, that there should be a limit to the operation of the Act. The Commissioners, however, are of opinion that the term of two years, named by the noble Earl, in view of the notices which have to be given, determination of tenancies, and matters of that kind, is too short, and they ask for four years. The suggestion we make is, that the clause should run in this form:—
  "The provisions of this Act for the acquisition of land, and for the determination of tenancies, shall continue for four years after the passing of this Act."
  It is necessary to put it in that form, because there are certain matters in connection with the Act which are not temporary but permanent. It is the power for the acquisition of land that the noble Lord means; and I am afraid we must ask for a term of four years, because the Estates Commissioners say it is necessary.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsuggested that the clause should read, "four years and no longer."
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Certainly; "and no longer," if the noble Lord likes.
  LORD CLONBROCKasked whether the noble Earl would adopt the old Irish plan of "splitting the difference," and agree to three years.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I need not tell noble Lords that I have no personal opinion on the matter. One is obliged to be guided upon this question by the Estates Commissioners, and they are afraid, they say, of having a shorter term than four years. I hope, therefore, the noble Lords will not press for a less period.
  LORD BARRYMOREsaid that he would move as an Amendment that the
  word "three" be inserted in place of the word "two."
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment is an Amendment to an Amendment.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I move it in this form—
  "The provisions of this Act for the acquisition of land and for the determination of tenancies shall continue in force for four years after the passing of this Act."
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will put "three" first, and then, if that is negatived, I will put "four."
  On Question, whether the word "three" be inserted, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 31.

  CONTENTS.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Wicklow, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Northumberland, D.

  Dunleath, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Ellenborough, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Estcourt, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Hampden, V.

  Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Camden, M.

  Hill, V.

  Fermanagh, L. (E Erne.)

  Lansdowne, M.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Forester, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Kensington, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Addington, L.

  Kenyon, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Amherst of Hackney, L.

  Lamington, L.

  Cowley, E.

  Ampthill, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Lovat, L.

  Devon, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Massy, L.

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

  Barrymore, L.

  Muskenry, L.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Newton, L.

  Eldon, E.

  Braye, L.

  Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

  Haddington, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

  Hardwicke, E.

  Carew, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Lauderdale, E.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Rathdonnell, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Morley, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Morton, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Plymouth, E.

  Cloncurry, L.

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

  Powis, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Collins, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Stanhope, E.

  Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Verulam, L.

  Digby, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Waleran, L.

  Westmeath, E.

  Dunalley, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Dartmouth, E.

  Denman, L.

  Onslow, E.

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

  Crewe, E. (L. President.)

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Eversley, L.

  Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Airedale, L.

  Glantawe, L.

  Allendale, L.

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

  Beauchamp, E.

  Blyth, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Castletown, L.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Craven, E.

  Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]

  Haversham, L.

  Headley, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Sanderson, L.

  Hemphill, L.

  Nunburnholme, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Herschell, L.

  Pirrie, L.

  Weardale, L.

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  LORD CLONBROCK*LORD CLONBROCK moved to insert two new headings at the end of the Schedule. He said that the Government had accepted on the Committee stage his Amendment for a periodical return by the Commissioners; but it had since been represented to him that the Schedule would be improved by the addition of two more headings under the heading of "Poor Law Valuation," namely, "Former Holding—New Holding." He hoped the noble Earl would have no objection to that Amendment.
  "In page 12, at the end of the Schedule, to insert

  Poor Law Valuation.

  Former

  New

  Holding.

  Holding.

  (14)

  (15)

  "

  —(Lord Clonbrock.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
  Bill to be read 3a To-morrow and to be printed as amended. (No 179.)

  PRISONS (IRELAND) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order). Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
  LIGHTS ON VEHICLES BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
  VACCINATION BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendment; and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  COUNCIL OF INDIA BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read:
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, this is a Bill having for its object to make some alterations in the present organization of the Council of India, which is the Secretary of State for India's Council in this country. It is a short Bill, and I hope your Lordships will accept it as containing advisable alterations in the present constitution of the Council of India.
  Your Lordships know that the India Council was constituted by the Act of 1858, at the time when the Government of India was passsd over from the Company to the Crown. It was constituted for the purpose of providing a body of competent and expert advisers for the Secretary of State. At that time, the India Council was composed of 15 members; since then, the number of members has been reduced to the present number, the utmost of which is 12; and also, the Secretary of State is not obliged to fill up the whole number, but may, under certain circumstances, appoint only a number less than the full number. Since the year 1858, territory under the Government of India has largely increased in various directions. I may mention specially the direction of Burmah, and my right hon. friend Mr. Morley has come to the conclusion that it would be desirable to increase the present number of Councillors to 14, that is still less than the number fixed under the Act of 1858, and I believe that I may assure your Lordships that that is a necessary and advisable increase. Your Lordships are, I think, aware that it is the intention of my right hon. friend to appoint two native-born Indians to the Council as soon as he can, but I desire to point out that that is no reason why the number of other members of the Council should be diminished, because it is most desirable to have on the Secretary of State's Council representatives of the various Administrations and Departments of the Government of India, that is to say, representatives of the Army, of the Local Governments of the Provinces, and of Finance and Revenue. Therefore the

  1563
  Secretary of State thinks that it is important that we should revert again rather towards the number, though not to the full number, of Councillors as fixed by the Act of 1858. I believe, considering the increase of territory of India, the increase of the population of India, and the increase of Indian interests in every direction, it is very desirable that the number of the existing Indian Councillors should be increased as proposed by this Bill. There is nothing, I think, excessive in the number suggested; it is still, as I say, less than that established by the Act of 1858; and I venture, therefore to recommend that provision to your Lordships' acceptance.
  Then, my Lords, the next clause in the Bill provides that those appointed who have Indian experience shall have come home from India not more than 10 years. I am very strongly impressed with the belief and conviction that a reduction in the period of time since the Councillor to be appointed has left India is very important. You want to have, as I think my noble friend, Lord Lansdowne will agree, the most recent experience that you can get in the Council of the Secretary of State. We often hear about the "unchanging East," but very great changes take place in India from time to time, and it is most important that the Secretary of State at home should have the most recent experience that he can have at his disposal for his advice. Then it is proposed to shorten the period of tenure of office from ten to seven years. That, again, I think is a good arrangement, and tends in the same direction, namely, to get more recent experience; and I have the strongest conviction that that is a matter of much importance.
  Then there is another matter—I have taken it rather in the wrong order, but your Lordships will excuse me for that—and that is, that it is proposed to reduce the salary, which at present stands at £1,200 a year, to £1,000 a year. Some criticism might perhaps be offered upon that point, but my right hon. friend feels, as I think we all must feel, that he is bound to keep down every branch of Indian expenditure that he can, and that it is particularly undesirable that the expenditure connected with the India Office should be at a higher rate than is absolutely necessary. It must be
  1564
  remembered that the majority of the members of that Council are mea who are in receipt of an Indian pension of £1,000 a year, and that they receive their salary as Councillors, whether it be £1,200, or £1,000, in addition to their Indian pension; their pension does not cease with their appointment to the Council. Therefore they receive practically from Indian revenues £2,000 a year. There are no doubt other members of the Council who have not been in the Civil Service or the Military Service of India, and who stand upon another footing, but then it is open to them to engage in other avocations; they have time at their disposal, and I think that a salary of £1,000 a year is quite sufficient for the purpose. Those gentlemen, my Lords, and the men of the same class upon the India Council, render, and have always rendered, very valuable assistance to the Secretary of State in financial and other matters; they are most important members of the Council of India; but I believe that £1,000 a year is quite sufficient for the purpose, as they are not required to devote the whole of their time to their duties at the India Office.
  Then, my Lords, the Bill proposes to repeal the two Acts of Parliament which made the changes to which I have referred in the Act of 1858—and, of course, the repeal of those Acts is necessary if your Lordships agree to this Bill. I cannot but think that the proposals of the Bill will make an important change in the constitution of the Council of India at home; and I am glad to have this opportunity of expressing my entire concurrence in the proposal of my right hon. friend to appoint two native-born gentlemen of India as members of this Council. I believe that that is a very wise and judicious step; I believe it is the best form and the best mode of associating native gentlemen with the Secretary of State in this country; and it is a great pleasure to me that that proposal should have been made by my right hon. colleague. I beg to move the Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."
  LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I fully appreciate the fact that the House is weary after the exhausting labours of

  1565
  the past few days, and I should be the last to trespass upon the patience and forbearance of your Lordships. But, I really feel, as one who has recently held a position of responsibility in India, that it is incumbent upon me to say what I think of this Bill, and as I have nothing but cordial—I might even say enthusiastic—approval to express, the duty becomes for once in a way a real pleasure. I should like first to say incidentally that knowing as I do the feelings of the people of India, I rejoice particularly that the noble Marquess who leads the House should be in charge of this Bill, for I am sure the fact will meet with very enthusiastic and affectionate approval in India.
  My Lords, I am surprised that this Bill should have attracted so little notice or comment, notwithstanding the fact that there are so many other legislative attractions, for it seems to me a measure of no small importance. It is a step, and a very decided step, in the direction of meeting the hopes and wishes of those classes in India who, taught and inspired by ourselves to aim at political progress on Western lines, aspire to take a greater share in the government of India, and to exercise a larger influence on that government. It is not my purpose—it would not in any circumstances have been my purpose—on this occasion to discuss the whole question of present day political tendencies in India, to examine their depth and extent, and to suggest the limitations by which British rule must be preserved. I am only concerned with the primary object of this Bill, which, as the noble Marquess pointed out, is to enable the Secretary of State for India to nominate Indians for appointment by His Majesty as members of the Council of India. I take it that the proposed alterations in the conditions of appointment of the other members of the Council are incidental to this primary object, and the necessary consequences of experience at the India Office, but in the presence of my noble friend the late Secretary of State for India I will not presume I to discuss those proposals. But the appointment of Indians to the Council of I the Secretary, of State has been long and earnestly desired by Indian politicians of all shades of opinion, whether they be moderate or extreme, and I for one rejoice heartily that the wish is to be
  1566
  gratified. It has always seemed to me a perfectly natural, legitimate, and reasonable wish, and I am confident that nothing but good will result from its realisation. It is very easy to point out difficulties, but what branch of public affairs is there in which it is not easy to point out objections and difficulties? How, it is asked, will you find two Indians to represent the feelings and views of the numerous races in India, with their diversities of language, religion, and custom, and their differences of political opinion—differences as wide and as varied as those which subsist in this country? Of course you will not be able to find such men, any more than you are able to find in this country Ministers of the Crown who represent the views of more than a portion of the population. But those who are appointed will be Indians, and that fact will be a fact of far greater importance to the people of India than it is possible for anyone who has not lived there to realise. Again, it is asked how are you to find Indians of the necessary ability and experience, combined with the requisite means and leisure which will enable them to leave their own homes and avocations and to take up their residence in this country? I believe that in politics as in economics demand creates supply, and that men are made by circumstances rather than circumstances by men. You will get the right men, men who will be invaluable to the Secretary of State in the changing conditions of Indian administration. You will get them, if not at once, certainly in due course of time. In this matter we may be guided by our own experience in this country. With every change of Ministry, with every new appointment of the Government, the public at large say, in respect of all except those few who are recognised as the leading statesmen of the day, that they wonder how such obscure and insignificant men can possibly have been chosen for such important and responsible posts. But in a very short time—in a few months—all that is changed, and the public—certainly the public on one side of politics—regards those men as the right men in the right places, and fully admits their competence to discuss the affairs of the nation and to take their part in guiding national affairs. My point is that you cannot tell what men are made of until

  1567
  you have tried them; you cannot say that men are fit or unfit for responsibility until you have placed them and proved them in responsible positions.
  Now, of course, there are many men—a great many men—of intellectual eminence, of great capacity and of high character, among the educated classes in India, and it is to my mind inconceivable that among those men there should not be found some who are both able and willing to fill these posts with credit to themselves and advantage to their countrymen. The high traditions of the office of Secretary of State for India make it certain that the right men will be chosen, and it is equally certain that that selection, whatever it may be, will be criticised and disapproved by a great many people in India. But to my mind that criticism and that disapproval will be of no more consequence and no more disadvantage than the criticism and disapproval of responsible men in this country. The Secretary of State will have the advantage of having at his side, among his advisers, men who feel like Indians, and those who have been in India will know what I mean when I say that the inner workings of an Indian mind are not exactly the same as those of an English mind. His Majesty's Government must not expect loud-voiced gratitude or delight in India over this concession. Those who express their opinion at all will say that it is a trifling concession, one which is hardly worth thanking for, and that it will in no way satisfy their demands. But the Government may rest assured that they will have another form of gratitude—the silent appreciation of that large section of the educated classes in India who firmly believe in the justice and advantage of British rule, and who will recognise in this concession yet another proof of the affection and sympathy of the Government and people of this country. That is why I say that this concession would be worth making even if it could be proved that no material advantage would result from it. It is a fulfilment of pledges, an earnest of goodwill, and a proof of sympathy. And, my Lords, there are no people in the world who respond more readily, more gratefully, and more sincerely to the human note in public affairs than do the people of India. It will be said
  1568
  that this is a concesssion to agitation. I know that it is nothing of the kind, and I am glad that the Secretary of State takes the view that we are strong enough to persist, without fear or hesitation, in the course of progress and reform, in spite of the disloyalty of the few and the discontent of some others. My Lords, I congratulate His Majesty's Government on the policy which is initiated by this Bill.
  VISCOUNT MLDLETON: My Lords, after the eloquent tribute which has been paid by my noble friend, who has himself filled the office of Viceroy, and who has concurred entirely in the speech of the noble Marquess opposite, who also has filled that high office, it seems almost unnecessary for me to add what I should desire to add in one single sentence—my entire appreciation of the policy initiated by His Majesty's Government in this Bill of placing two natives upon the Council of India. I hope that we may anticipate very happy results from that measure, although I am sure the guarded note of my noble friend behind me (Lord Ampthill) is one which will commend itself to those who are acquainted with politics in India.
  My Lords, at this hour I propose in the fewest possible words to make one or two observations upon the other provisions in the Bill. I quite agree with the noble Marquess in saying that it is desirable that the limit of five years rather than ten from the period of leaving India should be the period for appointment to the Council of India at Whitehall. I also feel that there is great force in the proposal that instead of an appointment for ten years, as heretofore, the appointment should be for seven years. A man who, for thirty years or more, has done the enormous amount of work which falls upon an Indian civilian of the present day, and who comes home, would perhaps sometimes enjoy an unduly prolonged tenure of office if, after those thirty years of service in India, he was appointed for ten years without any possibility of reconsideration by the Secretary of State.
  I venture most heartily to congratulate the Government, so far as these two objects of the Bill are concerned, upon having attained them, but I should like

  1569
  also to say one word in the most respectful manner after what has fallen from the noble Marquess as to the increase in the number of members of the Council. This is in direct opposition to the whole policy which has been pressed upon and pursued by Secretaries of State for some time past. So far from the Council of India having been considered to be unduly small, successive Secretaries of State have even left vacancies unfilled, because they felt that the work to be divided, and the charge to be put upon the public, were not adequate to the large number, as I think it is, of the present Council. The power of the Council of India is very great. It is only those who are immediately connected with the business of India perhaps who appreciate how great it is. They are the colleagues of the Secretary of State, not his subordinates, and they are his masters in the matter of finance. Except in questions of high policy, such as Cabinet questions, the Secretary of State is voting only as one of twelve in his own Council. Surely, in a case in which the responsibility is so great, it is desirable rather to concentrate responsibility than to dilute it, and the larger the number the more it must be diluted. The larger the body the less must be the individual responsibility. Let me just take the facts. When I joined the Council as Secretary of State I think the number was eleven. It has been on several occasions within the last five years ten. At this moment it is only nine, although the Secretary of State has within the last three or four months appointed three members. So that there are now three vacancies, and there would be no difficulty whatever in his introducing two Indian representatives and still having a vacancy to dispose of. And if I might make a suggestion to the noble Marquess—because I feel very strongly upon this point—I would ask why, if the number were maintained at twelve, should you not have two representing India, two lawyers, as at present, two soldiers if you desire it, two financiers as at present, and still four other administrators? Were you to do this you would still give to the civil servants of India practically the same representation and the same number of posts as has been the case for some years past.
  While I feel very strongly upon that point, I will not say another word upon
  1570
  it, because of the moment at which I am speaking. But I would also urge most strongly that this proposed reduction of salaries is inopportune and undesirable. Of course I see the object of His Majesty's Government. They do not want to increase the total charge, and so they have given the salaries of twelve men divided amongst fourteen. But I put it to the noble Marquess, after his own observations as regards the settlement of 1858, if it was in 1858 desirable to give a man £1,200 a year when he came home, in addition to his then pension, how much more important it is not to decrease the amount now, when an Indian civilian can save so far less during his period of office than he could in 1858. Men come home with comparatively very small sums put away, and it seems to me highly undesirable to reduce the pay of those men from £1,200 to £1,000. But there is another class whose salaries it is absolutely injurious to the Council to reduce in amount. You ask two men of the highest financial repute in the City that you can get to come and advise you at the Council on most important and very large interests. There is the greatest difficulty in inducing those men to come. Even in the last few months the Secretary of State has lost one most able representative because he was unable to give the time from his other business without great loss to himself. I do not mean to say that the difference of £200 a year will make a complete difference in getting such a man, but it is a difference the wrong way, and if you ask a man to give up engagements at a cost very often of some thousands in order to give you his attendance, it is certainly undesirable to cut down the amount of the not large stipend which you pay him.
  I have ventured to put these points forward, and I would urge them upon the attention of the Government. I will not move any Amendment to this Bill. I should be extremely sorry to appear in any way to cavil at any act taken upon the responsibility of the Secretary of State for India, and still more upon the responsibility of a Secretary of State so broadminded and of so much experience in affairs as the present Secretary of State for India. But I believe that if these points are reconsidered by

  1571
  the Government it will be found possible to do all that can be desired by pre serving the present number of members, that you will have a much better security by keeping to the present salaries, and that if you carry the Bill reducing the number of years service and the number of years pay after leaving India, you will have achieved a very valuable reform without impairing the usefulness of a body whom we all desire to see as efficient as possible.
  On Question, Motion agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (TONNAGE DEDUCTIONS FOR PROPELLING POWER) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order). An Amendment made. Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendment to be received on Tuesday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 180.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: When docs the noble Lord propose to take the Third Reading of the Bill?
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: Whenever it will suit the noble Marquess. I should like to take it as soon as possible.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I would only remind the noble Lord that the evidence of the Committee is not yet printed, and I will ask him not to take it until next week.
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: Very well.

  NATIONALTY CONVENTION WITH THE REPUBLIC OF HAYTI.
  LORD NEWTON: I will not detain the House more than a minute or two in reference to this matter, but I wish to give my noble friend opposite an opportunity of making a statement upon the subject. Briefly, the facts are as follows. In April, I think, of last year, the British Consul-General in Hayti concluded a convention with the Haytian Government under which all coloured persons of British origin who were born after 1889 became Haytian citizens, and all Haytian subjects in the same position who were
  1572
  born in British territory became British subjects. It will be observed that this is a retrospective Convention. There would be nothing to be said against it if equal advantages were obtained by both sides, but although it is obvious that there may be considerable advantages in becoming a British subject there are no apparent advantages in becoming a subject of the Republic of Hayti. I never heard anyone express a desire to become a member of that community, and I do not think anybody is likely to come across anyone possessing peculiar wishes of that kind. I am given to understand that those persons who are affected consider themselves naturally somewhat aggrieved, and although I am well aware that it is very inconvenient, in some instances, that there should be British subjects who are not particularly desirable acquisitions, and who have to be protected, and so forth, yet I confess that it seems rather hard that persons who have been brought up in the belief that they were British subjects should now be placed in a position of becoming citizens of the Haytian Republic. I would therefore ask my noble friend to make a statement upon this point. I should like to know whether any expressions of dissatisfaction have reached him, and I should also like to ask him whether it is the case, as I have been assured, that a similar Convention was proposed to the French Government and the German Government, and that in both cases those two Governments refused to entertain the proposal.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAURICE): I shall be very glad to make a short statement in reply to the interesting points with regard to the law of nationalisation and nationality in Hayti which my noble friend has raised. The facts are as follows, and I think my noble friend will see that there is a good deal of misapprehension on the subject. The Convention signed at Port au Prince on the 6th April, 1906, was concluded in order to settle various questions of nationality which had arisen between the United Kingdom and Hayti. Certain claims were made against the Haytian Government by persons (mainly of West Indian descent, and mostly, I believe, of Jamaica) whom his Majesty's Government held

  1573
  to be British subjects, but whom the Haytian Government considered as Haytian citizens under Article 3 of the Constitution of 1889. The third paragraph of this Act runs as follows:—
  "All persons born in Hayti of a foreign father or, if not recognised by the father, of a foreign mother, are Haytian subjects provided that they are of African descent."—
  while Article 6 of the same Constitution states that only Haytian subjects can hold real property in Hayti. In view of those Articles in the Constitution, and of the claims made by the persons above referred to, it was considered eminently desirable to end the disputes regarding questions of nationality by the conclusion of some arrangement with the Haytian Government; and, on the Haytian Government submitting a draft Convention on the subject, His Majesty's Government expressed their willingness to come to some settlement. These negotiations resulted in the signature of the Convention of 1906 which I have already mentioned. The chief points to be noted with regard to this Convention are that only persons of British origin who have been born in Hayti since the promulgation of the Constitution of 1889 and whose nationality is fixed by Art. 3, par. 3, of the Constitution, already quoted, are regarded as Haytian subjects, while resident in the Republic. Consequently, children of white parents not descended from the African race cannot, even if born after the Constitution of 1889, be claimed as Haytian subjects, unless in cases where a white subject should marry a woman of African descent and have issue by her. No such case is, however, at present known. The large majority of the persons affected are those who since the Constitution of 1889 was promulgated, have been born in Hayti of parents of African descent and who, through their education, associations, and practically everything else, can only be rightly described as Haytian citizens and whose nationality in fact is regarded as Haytian. In most cases these persons are unable to speak English, and are entirely Haytian in instinct, customs, and habits. Art. 1 of the Convention is additionally safeguarded by Art. 6, the first paragraph of which is as follows—
  "The names of the British subjects now resident in Hayti shall be communicated by His Britannic Majesty's Consul General to the Haytian Government, and provided that
  1574
  they have hitherto been regarded as foreigners in Hayti shall receive diplomatic protection from His Majesty's Government."
  Those persons who, under this Convention, become subjects will, of course, enjoy all rights and advantages possessed by Haytian citizens, and will be entitled to hold all kinds of real property, from which they are now excluded. As far as the Foreign Office is aware, no negotiations have taken place between the German and the French Governments and Haytian Government with regard to the conclusion of any similar Convention. With regard to the question of whether any complaint has been lodged at the Foreign Office, I may say that there was a question asked in the House of Commons the other day by a Member of Parliament of the Secretary of State, and an outline of the same reply which I have now given was communicated to him; but, with that exception, I am not aware that there has been any complaint.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I move that the House do now adjourn. I believe that the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Northumberland) and others are anxious that I should now state what course it is intended to take with the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill. The intention of the Government is to move the Second Reading on Tuesday next, and the Bill will be in charge of Lord Tweed mouth.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Will it be the first Order of the day?
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I have not actually considered the Order, but as far as I know it will be.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I only want to know whether it will be practically the first Order. It will not, I presume, be treated like the Tonnage Bill of last night.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I have every anticipation that there will be a long debate, and I will endeavour to give proper time for it.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.