Sitting of 21 February 1907

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

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—Taff Vale Railway Bill; Great Western, London and North Western, and Rhymney Railway Companies Bill; London and NorthWestern Railway Bill; London and North Western Railway (Superannuation Fund) Bill; North Eastern and Lancashire and Yorkshire Railways Bill; Plymouth and

  1001
  North Devon Direct Railway (Abandonment) Bill; Falmouth Gas Bill; Basingstoke Gas Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 63 COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Readingthereof, Standing Order No. 63 has been compiled with, viz.:—Richmond (Surrey) Electricity Supply Bill; Shanklin Gas Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a Second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  MR. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—London Government Scheme (Southwark Borough Market) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time to-morrow.

  PORTOBELLO AND MUSSELBURGH TRAMWAYS (PORT SETON DEVIATION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
PETITIONS.
  WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  Petitions in favour; From Alnwick; Enfield; and, Richmond; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION (METROPOLITAN BUILDING ESTATES, PUBLIC HOUSES).
  Return [presented 20th February] to be printed. [No. 41.]
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
  Copy presented, of Return of Proceedings of the Irish Land Commission during the month of December, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS ACT, 1906.
  Copy presented, of Regulations made by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Copies presented, of three Orders in Council of 11th February, 1907, entitled (1) The Northern Nigeria Order in Council, 1907; (2) The Corea Order in Council, 1907; (3) The China and Corea (Amendment) Order in Council, 1907 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EXPLOSIVES ACT, 1875.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 11th February, 1907, amending the Orders in Council of the 27th November, 1875, relating to Stores licensed for Gunpowder and for mixed Explosives respectively [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EXTRADITION ACTS, 1870 to 1906.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 11th February, 1907, for giving effect to a Supplementary Convention which was concluded on the 12th April, 1905, between His Majesty and the President of the United States of America for the Mutual Extradition of Fugitive Criminals [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (IMPERIAL YEOMANRY).
  Copy presented, of Training Return of Imperial Yeomanry for 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY.
  Copy presented, of Interim Report of the War Office Committee on the Provision of Officers (a) for service with the Regular Army in war, and (b) for the Auxiliary Forces [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATE, 1906–7.
  Copy presented, of Supplementary Estimate for the Army for the year 1906–7 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 40.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Report, Annual Series, No. 3745 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL CONFERENCE, 1907.
  Copy presented, of Despatch from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with Enclosures respecting the Agenda of the Colonial Conference, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRANSVAAL.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Foreign Labour Department, Johannesburg, for 1905–6 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NORTH SEA FISHERIES INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE.
  Copy presented, of Second Report (Northern Area) on Fishery and Hydrographical Investigations in the North Sea and Adjacent Waters, 1904–5. Part I. Hydrography [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Draft Order in Council amending the Order of the 7th August, 1900, providing for the establishment of a Consultative Committee [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE (MONEY ORDERS).
  Copy presented, of the Postal Order (Foreign and Colonial) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1907. Dated 30th January, 1907 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  COAL EXPORTED.
  Return ordered, "giving, for the year 1906, the Export of Coal from each Port in the United Kingdom to each Country Abroad, together with summary statements showing the Export
  1004
  of Coal in every period of three months from the principal districts of the United Kingdom to the principal groups of Foreign Countries; and also showing the quantity of Coal shipped in each Port in the United Kingdom for ships' use on Foreign voyages during like periods (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 121, of Session 1906.)"—(MR. D. A. Thomas.)

  PRICES OF EXPORTED COAL.
  Return ordered, "giving the quantities of Coal exported from each of the principal Ports in the United Kingdom by quarterly periods in 1906 at prices not exceeding 5s., above 5s. but not exceeding 6s., above 6s. but not exceeding 7s., and so on (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 111, of Session 1906)."—(MR. D. A. Thomas.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Postal Officials' Annual Leave.
  SIR G. KEKEWICH: To ask the Postmaster-General why, seeing that the Order in Council of 15th August, 1890, which required seven hours daily service, allowed thirty-six and, in certain cases, forty-eight week-days of annual leave to Civil Servants drawing salaries or placed on scales of salary in excess of those of the Second Division, that amount of annual leave has not been granted to officers in the postal service, though it has been granted to officers of similar rank in other departments.
  (Answered by MR. Sydney Buxton.) The question of the leave granted to officers of the Post Office is under my consideration. The present rules, which are of long standing, are in some respects more favourable and in others less favourable than those contemplated by the Order in Council to which the hon. Member refers.

  Belfast Telegraphist's Grievance.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General, whether his attention has been called to the fact that a telegraphist at Belfast has been stopped

  1005
  at the efficiency bar, because of his ignorance of counter duties; and whether, in view of the fact that the assurance given at the time of the Norfolk-Hanbury Conference, that nothing should be required for passage over the efficiency bar beyond what had been previously required of a telegraphist proceeding from the second class to the first class, has by insisting upon a knowledge of counter duties from telegraphists at Belfast been departed from, he can state why this telegraphist has been expected to become more highly qualified than other telegraphists in large officers in the United Kingdom.
  (Answered by MR. Sydney Buxton.) The officer to whom the hon. Member appears to refer was not stopped at the efficiency bar solely because he had been unsuccessful in performing counter duties. He proved to be incompetent also on some of the highest duties in the instrument room; and this failure of itself made it necessary to withhold the certificate of ability to perform the highest duties of his class without which no officer can proceed beyond the efficiency bar. Nothing in the treatment of the case is inconsistent with the principles laid down by the Norfolk-Hanbury Conference.

  Vacancies in the Glasgow Telegraph Office.
  MR. BARNES: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that several vacancies exist in the superior grades of officials at the Glasgow telegraph office; whether he is aware that the local authorities state that the delay in issuing the promotion rests with the headquarter staff, London; and whether, in view of the official assurances given before the Committee on Post Office Wages that no delays took place, he will direct that all promotions should date from the period the various positions became vacant.
  (Answered by MR. Sydney Buxton.) The delay has been unavoidable, certain questions of a complicated character having arisen in connection with the selection of officers to fill the vacant
  1006
  posts. I shall be prepared to take all the circumstances into consideration when deciding from what date to carry out the promotions.

  Naval Manœuvres Report.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what department of the Admiralty compiled the Report of the naval manœuvres; whether he is aware that the Report suppresses all mention of the engine-room breakdowns and failures on the part of vessels to keep up with their fleet and squadrons so vitally affecting their movements, while on the other hand it chronicles many petty details of movements; and whether he will inquire if the Department in question is adequately staffed.
  (Answered by MR. Edmund Robertson.) The Report of the manœuvres was compiled by the chief umpire and the umpires all confidential matter being excluded.

  Associations of Schools.
  MR. BERTRAM: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he can state what have been the receipts and expenditure, from their foundation up to the coming into force of the Education Act, 1902, of the associations of schools established under the Voluntary Schools Act, 1897, and what balance remained in their hands at the latter date; whether any of these associations still exist; and, if so, what is their present legal status and position, and what are the duties they now discharge; whether he can give particulars of the receipts and expenditure of such last-mentioned associations (if any) from the coming into force of he Education Act, 1902, up to the present time, showing the balances now remaining undisposed of in the hands of each association; and whether he can show in any statements of those accounts what sums have been received from Parliamentary grants and from private subscriptions separately.
  (Answered by MR. McKenna.) I regret it is impossible within the limits

  1007
  of an Answer to discuss the complex matters dealt with in my hon. friend's Question, and I can only refer him to the volume of Aid Grant Statistics [Cd. 2412 of 1905], published by the Board of Education, and more especially to the prefatory memorandum and the summary on page 203. This volume contains all the information in the possession of the Board on the subject.

  Tidworth Sewage Pumps.
  Captain FABER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the engines lately supplied at Tidworth for sewage disposal were made in Germany; whether the pumps at the same place were made in America; and whether any English firms were asked to tender for these engines or pumps; and, if so, why their tenders were refused.
  (Answered by MR. Secretary Haldane.) These services were authorised in the time of my predecessor. The engines in question were made by the Diesel Engine Company, and are presumably of German manufacture. The pumps were supplied by MR. F. Nell, and are of American manufacture. It appears that the decision was made by the Department in accordance with the advice of its technical experts.

  Consumptive Soldiers.
  COLONEL SEELY: To ask the Secretary of State for War how many men were discharged from the Army during the past year suffering from tubercle of the lung; how many of these men were sent to their homes, with a notification to the local medical officer of health; and how many were sent direct to hospitals or sanatoria, stating the particular hospitals or sanatoria and the numbers sent to each.
  (Answered by MR. Secretary Haldane.) The statistics available at the War Office do not contain the required information. It will be necessary to call for Returns from all Army hospitals at home. When
  1008
  the information has been collected I will have it forwarded to my hon. and gallant friend.

  Mountmellick Soldier's Pension.
  MR. MEEHAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a pensioner, named Patrick McEvoy, Mountmellick, Queen's County, registered No. 1,487, 1st Battalion Royal Scots, served in the Army over twenty years, twelve and a half years of which were served in India, and, while there, contracted diseases, from the effects of which he never recovered; and, seeing that McEvoy's pension amounts to 7½d. per day, and that he is now over seventy years of age and totally unable to work, whether his pension will be increased by such a sum as will prevent his having recourse to the union for relief and becoming chargeable on the rates.
  (Answered by MR. Secretary Haldane.) This man was discharged at his own request and not for disability. As he had no war service and no good conduct badges the pension of 7½d. is the highest permissible under the regulations applicable to him.

  Stradbally Soldier's Pension.
  MR. MEEHAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the Report of the meeting of the Athy (county Kildare) Board of Guardians, held on Wednesday, 13th inst., from which it appears that an ex-soldier, named Thomas Pike, formerly a resident in Stradbally, Queen's County, and chargeable to that district, having served in the 76th Company, Royal Artillery, was invalided from India to Netley Hospital, from which he was discharged on 2nd May, 1905; whether he is aware that Pike was granted a pension of 8d. per day for one year, which expired on 1st April, 1906; and whether seeing that this ex-soldier is now destitute, a confirmed invalid, an inmate of the union hospital at the cost of the local rates, a pension will be granted or a

  1009
  contribution made to recoup the rates the cost of his maintenance.
  (Answered by MR. Secretary Haldane.) I have not seen the Report of the meeting in question. The man referred to, whose name is Pilk, enlisted on 23rd July, 1900, and deserted in September 1900; he rejoined in June 1903. He was invalided for illness not attributable to his service as a soldier. The Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital state that he is therefore not entitled to any further pension.

  Sparkbrook Gun Factory.
  MR. DUNCAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War if, in the contracts given by the Government to the purchasers of the Sparkbrook Gun Factory, as a condition of purchase, there is any condition or understanding that the firm shall employ upon the orders apportioned to this particular factory the workmen who were employed at the time of its sale.
  (Answered by MR. Secretary Haldane.) One of the conditions of sale was that the purchaser should give preference as regards employment to the men employed by the War Department at date of giving possession, and it will be the business of this department to see that this condition is observed.

  Repatriated Chinese.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the total number of Chinese already repatriated from the Transvaal, what was the number of Chinese employed in the mines at the date of the posting of the repatriation proclamation; what is the total number at present employed; and what is the number estimated to be repatriated before 31st March.
  (Answered by MR. Churchill.) The total number of Chinese coolies repatria-
  1010
  ated up to 31st January, 1907, was 7,344. The number employed on the mines on 30th April, 1906, about a fortnight before the repatriation notice was posted, was 49,832. The number employed on 31st December, 1906, was 52,917. I cannot say what further number may be repatriated before 31st March.

  Poor Law Expenditure.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state what was the entire expenditure from rates, including expenditure out of loans and from any other source, if any, of Poor Law administration since the passing of the Act of 1834 to the end of the financial year, 1906.
  (Answered by MR. John Burns.) The aggregate expenditure, ordinarily classed as relating to the relief of the poor, of the guardians of the poor, and other local authorities in England and Wales during the period of seventy-two years referred to was approximately £554,000,000.

  Trade Statistics.
  MR. J. D. WHITE:To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state what were the aggregate imports, exports, and re-exports, together with the total of these, for the United Kingdom, the United States, France, and Germany, respectively, for the year 1906; what was the estimated population of each of these countries respectively for that year; and what were the imports, exports, and re-exports, together with the total of these, per head of population in each of these countries respectively for that year.
  (Answered by MR. Lloyd-George.) The particulars at present available do not enable all the information asked for to be given in respect of all the countries mentioned in the Question. The following

  1011
  figures, however, show for each of these countries the imports for Home

  Foreign Trade and Population of the United Kingdom, United States, France, and Germany in the year 1906.

  United Kingdom.

  United States.

  France.

  Germany.

  Foreign Trade:—

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Imports for Home Consumption

  522,825,000

  269,941,000

  209,177,000

  392,526,000

  Exports of Domestic Produce

  375,673,000

  369,325,000

  201,747,000

  306,250,000

  Total of above

  898,498,000

  639,266,000

  410,924,000

  698,766,000

  Estimated Population in the middle of the year

  No.

  No.

  No.

  No.

  43,659,000

  84,154,000

  39,400,000

  61,337,000

  Foreign Trade per head of the Population:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Imports for Home Consumption

  11

  19

  6

  3

  4

  2

  5

  6

  2

  6

  8

  0

  Exports of Domestic Produce

  8

  12

  1

  4

  7

  9

  5

  2

  5

  4

  19

  10

  Total of above

  20

  11

  7

  7

  11

  11

  10

  8

  7

  11

  7

  10

  Notes.—(1) The imports for Home consumption are calculated, in the case of the United Kingdom and United States, by deducting the value of the re-exports from the gross value of the imports in 1906.
  (2) The values of imports and exports stated in the German and French official accounts are for the most part computed on the basis of the ascertained average prices of 1905.

  Belfast and Lisburn Railway Tickets.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland has discontinued second-class accommodation between Belfast and Lisburn and declines to allow holders of second-class subscription tickets to travel first-class, whilst refusing to refund the difference between second-class and third-class tickets; and
  consumption and the exports of domestic produce during 1906:—
  whether the Board of Trade will cause inquiries to be made in the matter.
  (Answered by MR. Lloyd-George.). The Board of Trade are in communication with the railway company in this matter, and will acquaint the hon. Member with the result.

  Castleton Railway Fatality.
  MR. BELL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a fatal accident on 12th February at Castleton, Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, to a goods guard, Fred Wilkinson; if he is aware that at the time of the accident he had been on duty nearly fifteen hours; and whether he will, at an early date, call for a return of the hours worked by engine-drivers, firemen, goods guards, and brakesmen of goods mineral trains on all railways for the month of January, with a view to putting a stop to the

  1013
  present excessive hours of duty worked by these classes of railway employees.
  (Answered by MR. Kearley.) A Return of this accident has been received from the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, in which it is stated that the unfortunate man killed had been on duty for fourteen and three-quarter hours at the time of the mishap. An inquiry into the circumstances attending the accident will be held, and the question of the hours worked will be investigated. As my hon. friend was informed on Friday last,†it is proposed to call for a general Return of the hours of certain classes of railway servants, including those specified by him, for an early month.

  Crews of Customs Launches—Hours of Labour.
  MR. STEADMAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury when a decision is likely to be come to respecting the crews of the Customs'launches contained in the Question of the hon. Member for Central Finsbury of the 6th November, 1906.‡
  (Answered by MR. Runciman.) The memorial is still the subject of inquiry, but I hope a decision will shortly be arrived at.

  Tea Transit.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, under the existing arrangements of transit of tea from the quay to the bonded warehouse, it is possible for merchants to tamper with it; whether merchants are allowed to convey it on their own carts; and whether they are allowed in such cases to call at their own stores en route.
  (Answered by MR. Runciman.) I am informed that teain transit from the importing ship to bonded warehouse for first weighing is invariably removed under Crown lock, plomb-seal, or in charge of an officer; it is not possible, therefore, for it to be tampered with in transit. Merchants in London, if duly licensed as bonded carmen, may convey
  †See Cols. 414–5.
  ‡See (4) Debates, clxiv., 313.
  1014
  unweighed teas to bonded warehouses in their own vehicles, subject to these being secured by Crown lock or seal. At out ports the licensing of carmen is not deemed necessary, and merchants there may use their own vehicles for the removal of such teas if accompanied by an officer. The conveying vehicles are not allowed to call at their owners' stores en route, inasmuch as under the regulations and departmental practice all carmen, whether licensed or not, are required to convey the goods received into their charge "by the most direct and convenient way, and in the least possible time, to the place appointed for their delivery."

  Naval Strength.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many battleships and armoured cruisers were fully manned on 1st May, 1906, and how many will be fully manned under the new scheme of distribution that is about to take effect.
  (Answered by MR. Edmund Robertson.) The number of battleships fully manned on 1st May, 1906, was thirty-two, excluding the "Renown, "employed on special service, and the number of armoured cruisers nineteen. Under the new scheme there will be thirty-two battleships, and twenty-five cruisers fully manned.

  Nucleus Crews.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many skilled and how many unskilled ratings are embraced in the two-fifths complement of nucleus crews, and how many will then be in the new skeleton crews; and how many battleships and cruisers which, on 1st May, 1906, were fully manned or partially manned, will, under the new scheme of distribution, be degraded to ships with skeleton crews.
  (Answered by MR. Edmund Robertson.) It has always been the practice of the Admiralty to treat details of complement as strictly confidential, and I regret, therefore, that I cannot give my hon. friend the information asked for.

  Opium Traffic.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has received a copy of a Resolution carried at a recent meeting of the United Free Church Presbytery of Lochcarron, Ross-shire, urging that the traffic in opium between India and China should cease; and will he state what action is being taken in the matter.
  (Answered by MR. Secretary Morley.) The Resolution was received by me, as a great number of such Resolutions have been received, and duly acknowledged. For the action that His Majesty's Government are taking on the proposals of the Chinese Government, I would refer my hon. friend to my Answer to a Question on 19th February.†

  MR. Addison's Delhi Appointment.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India, having regard to the fact that the appointment of MR. Addison, a junior member of the Civil Service of India, to the office of secretary of the Delhi municipality, will result in MR. Addison's having to try cases as a magistrate which it will be his duty, as Municipal Secretary, to institute, will he state whether the question of rescinding the appointment has yet been considered.
  (Answered by MR. Secretary Morley.) I have ascertained from the Government of India that MR. Addison, while employed as secretary to the Delhi municipality, is expressly debarred from trying cases in which the municipality is concerned as prosecutor or defendant.

  Bhola District Courts.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he is aware that the sub-divisional officer attached to the Bhola District, of India is irregular in regard to the holding of courts, and that it not infrequently happens that he alters his arrangements for holding a court without any public notice whatever, with the result that suitors and witnesses spend an entire day awaiting his arrival at a court to find eventually that the court was being held at some other place; and will inquiry be made
  †See Col. 702.
  1016
  with a view to the adoption of some satisfactory system of holding courts in this district.
  (Answered by MR. Secretary Morley.) I have no information on this subject. If any irregularities can be shown in detail I will draw the attention of the Government of India to it.

  Indian Railway Boiling Stock.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he will state how much of the rolling stock under the Budget allotment of 382 lakhs for the financial year ending next 31st March, has been actually delivered in India, and brought into use to date; and whether steps can be taken to accelerate the increase of rolling stock announced in answer to a question on 29th March, 1906.†
  (Answered by MR. Secretary Morley.) The information asked for by the hon. Member is not immediately available. Owing to the length of time required for the manufacture of rolling stock, indents sanctioned against the allotment for any particular year cannot in general be complied with within that year. The expenditure on rolling stock on open lines for 1907–8, which was stated in my reply of 29thMarch, 1906,†at £2,253,333, has been increased to £2,787,000.

  Gotgeik Railway Bridge.
  MR. WALSH: To ask the Secretary of State for India, whether his attention has been directed to the condition of the Gotgeik railway bridge, Upper Burma; and whether, having regard to the general conditions attendant upon the erection of the bridge, he can lay before the House any information as to the stability of the structure.
  (Answered by MR. Secretary Morley.) Since the answer given on 13th June, 1904,‡by my predecessor to a question in this House regarding the Gotgeik bridge, no information has been received at the India Office that would lead me to suppose that there is any cause for anxiety as to its stability, but I will make inquiry
  †See (4) Debates, cliv., 1521.
  ‡See (4) Debates, cxxxv., 1475.

  Dublin Public Buildings.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consider the advisability of renovating the stone frontages of the Custom House Post Office, and Four Courts in Dublin, seeing that those buildings require such treatment.
  (Answered by MR. Runciman.) I am informed that these buildings are in good structural condition and do not require repair.

  Lough Corrib Ferry Service.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the need of a ferry service upon Lough Corrib between Kilbeg and Oughterard; whether the Galway County Council has expressed its willingness to provide and work such a ferry service, but has been advised by the Local Government Board that they have no power to do so; and will he take steps to obtain the necessary powers for the county council.
  (Answered by MR. Birrell.) The attention of the Irish Government has been called to the need of a ferry service over Lough Corrib. The Galway County Council have expressed their willingness to provide and work such a ferry with the aid of contributions which have been offered by the Congested Districts Board and the Department of Agriculture. The Council, however, have been advised, not by the Local Government Board, but by their own counsel, that in the present state of the Law they have no power to incur the necessary expense. As to the possibility of legislation in such case, I beg to refer to the reply given by the Attorney General for Ireland to the Question of the hon. Member for West Clare on the 18th inst.†

  Lloyd Estate, County Cavan.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will state whether an inspector from the Estates Commissioners has yet visited the
  †See Col. 527.
  1018
  Lloyd estate, county Cavan; and will he see that the evicted tenant, Ellen Reilly, is not prejudiced by the delay, and that the lands untenanted on this estate prior to the sale are sold with the rest of this estate to former tenants, their friends, or owners of uneconomic holdings in the district.
  (Answered by MR. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have not yet had an inspection made of the estate in question. They will consider the case of Ellen Reilly in the event of any untenanted land on the estate becoming available for distribution.

  Cushendall Water Supply.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the present position of the scheme for the water supply to Cushendall, county Antrim; and when the Provisional Order Bill will be introduced.
  (Answered by MR. Birrell.) The Local Government Board have recently held an inquiry into the scheme referred to, and are satisfied that it is a suitable one. The Provisional Order is in course of preparation, and will be submitted to Parliament for confirmation as soon as possible.

  Irish Drainage Commission.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, when the Report of the Drainage Commission will be presented; and whether any interim Report has yet been made.
  (Answered by MR. Birrell.) I am informed that the Report of the Arterial Drainage Commission has been completed, and is at present in course of circulation for signature by the members. It will be presented as soon as possible. It was not considered necessary to make an ad interim Report.

  Finner Camp Range.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Secretary of State for War, why it is proposed to discontinue the use, in connection with Finner Camp, county

  1019
  Donegal, of the 800 yards range on the lands of MR. H. W. Lilceby; is he aware that this range was considered exceedingly useful by General Leech when in command at the camp, and was very much used by the troops under his command; and is it proposed to acquire another 800 yards range on the lands of another person near the camp, and on what grounds is the change adopted.
  (Answered by MR. Secretary Haldane.) The land in question is not required for musketry purposes as there is a range on War Department land available in the vicinity. The General Officer commanding reports that nothing is known of the proposed hiring of another 500 yards range near Finner to which the last part of the Question alludes.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Admiralty Tenders.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the opportunity to tender for Admiralty requirements is strictly limited to a few leading manufacturers with large powers of production who are on what is known as the Admiralty list; whether he is aware that a source of supply from smaller makers is thereby rendered unavailable, and that both prices and quality suffer; and whether he is aware that it is the practice of the Secretary of State for India and the boards of most of the Indian railway companies to obtain their supplies of all railway plant, rolling stock, materials, etc., by open advertisement; and whether the Admiralty will also reconsider their practice in this matter.
  THE SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (MR. Edmund Robertson,): In the case of most articles it is the practice of the Admiralty, in common with other great purchasing Departments, to restrict invitations to tender to firms known to be capable of meeting requirements, both as regards quality and punctuality in delivery. All applicants are admitted to the Admiralty list who satisfy the Department as to their capability, and the list is only confined to the leading manufacturers in cases where requirements cannot be met except by
  1020
  contractors possessing special plant and resources. In all other cases small firms are admitted if they come up to the required standard. It is understood that the India Office follows substantially the same procedure as the Admiralty in purchasing similar articles, and it is only in the case of railway materials—which the Admiralty do not purchase to any considerable extent—that the India Office resorts to advertisement. The Admiralty procedure is directed towards obtaining the widest competition compatible with the punctual delivery of satisfactory supplies. With this object, the procedure is from time to time reviewed, but no sufficient reason is seen for departing from the present practice.

  Patrol Ships.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Government to place in commission, for duty as patrol ships in outlying stations of the Empire, any of the ships at present appearing in the Navy List as available for subsidiary service.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Answer is in the negative.

  Reorganisation of the Auxiliary Forces.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now conveniently communicate to the House the printed paragraphs of questions submitted to the Committee on the Reorganisation of the Auxiliary Forces by the Chairman as identical with those put before it by himself as Secretary of State; and the recommendations of the Committee with regard to them.
  THE SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (MR. Haldane,): I propose to give the House, as I promised, full information on introducing the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill. The specific questions put to and the replies by the Committee to which my right hon. friend alludes were for my own guidance. I do not therefore think that their publication would materially assist the House to the better understanding of the terms of the Bill or the reasons which led up to those terms.

  Army Order on Soldiers' Emoluments.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any public explanation has been made by the War Office of the Army Order on soldiers' emoluments, as affecting, not only enlistment after 1st October last, but also extension of service after that date.
  *MR HALDANE: No official memorandum in explanation of the changes in the soldiers' emoluments alluded to has yet been published by the War Office, but I shall refer to it in the printed statement which I shall issue immediately with the Army Estimates.

  Recent Army Orders on Service Pay.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the effect of the recent orders is to abolish service pay as regards all men enlisted or altering their terms of service after 1st October last; and, if not, whether he will state under what warrant or order service pay continues to exist; whether, as regards soldiers enlisted before the 1st October, the effect of Army Order 231 has been to deprive any, and, if so, how many, men of service pay previously enjoyed; and whether he will state the total diminution of pay of privates under the recent orders.
  MR. HALDANE: The effect of Army Order 231 of 1906 is to apply the new conditions to all men enlisting or entering into a new contract on or after the 1st October, 1906. Men serving before the 1st October, 1906, will retain service pay for the whole period of any contract into which they had entered before that date, their vested rights being thus scrupulously respected. Men not belonging to the cavalry, artillery, and infantry will not be eligible for service or proficiency pay from the date from which any new, contract into which they have been permitted to enter, subsequent to the 30th September, begins to run. The number at present affected is small and the reduction in emoluments cannot be carried out for a long period of years. It is not yet possible to state what will be the ultimate effect of the change. The rates of service pay in force when the new warrant was promulgated varied from 4d. to 7d. a day; the rates of proficiency pay are either 3d. or 6d. It is proposed to make the provision of the 3d. messing
  1022
  allowance to the recruit on enlistment instead of merely after six months a first charge on any savings under the new system which may accumulate.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether there are any cases in respect of which neither service pay nor proficiency pay will exist.
  MR. HALDANE: Proficiency pay is given only to men of the cavalry, artillery, and infantry, and will gradually replace service pay. Soldiers of the Royal Engineers, Army Service Corps, Army Ordnance Corps, Royal Army Medical Corps, and Army Veterinary Corps who receive Engineer and Corps pay, and certain other small groups like the Military Police, Army Pay Corps, etc., whose ordinary rate of pay already includes remuneration for technical qualification, are not eligible for proficiency pay, and only those will draw service pay who are entitled to it under contracts into which they entered before the 1st October, 1906.

  Imprisonment for Vagrancy in India.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state the number of persons in India who were sentenced in 1905 to rigorous imprisonment for a period of a year or more because they were unable to find security in answer to a charge of bad livelihood or vagrancy.
  THE SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (MR. Morley,): The statistics at my disposal do not show for all provinces the period or the nature (whether rigorous or simple) of the imprisonment of persons sentenced to be confined in default of furnishing security for good behaviour; but the total of such persons in the whole of India in 1905 was 15,515.

  Lahore Editor's Conviction.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the sentences of imprisonment for two years and fine of 1,000 rupees and of imprisonment for six months and fine of 200 rupees inflicted on the proprietor and editor of the Punjabi, a newspaper published at Lahore, for the publication, with

  1023
  comments thereon, of a statement, now proved to be false, that about two years ago a Mahomedan policeman had been shot by his superior European officer; and whether the Government of India are prepared to exercise the clemency of the Crown in reducing these sentences.
  MR. MORLEY: I am informed that an appeal has already been entered, and that, pending the result of the appeal, the convicted men have been released on bail. A second appeal would be open, if the first were to confirm the sentence. I see no reason to take any action at present.

  Indian Judiciary.
  DR.RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India when it is intended to make permanent appointments to the two puisne judgeships of His Majesty's High Court at Madras, which have been vacant for the past six months; and whether, bearing in mind the recommendations of the Public Service Commission, and the advisability of associating to a larger extent qualified persons of Indian nationality with the executive and judicial administration of the country, due consideration will be paid to the claims of Indian lawyers to one of the appointments.
  MR. MORLEY: Proposals regarding the strength of the Madras High Court are now under my consideration in council. As soon as orders have been passed, very shortly, I hope, I shall proceed to make appointments. The view which the hon. Member represents will be borne in mind, but I must remind him that the constitution of the Court is fixed by law.

  New Hebrides Convention—Employment of Girl Labour.
  SIR W. EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what moral protection will, under the New Hebrides Convention, be provided for native female children who, being of a certain height, as provided in Article 33, become liable to engagement as recruited labourers, subject to the consent of the chief of their tribe; whether such protection, if any, will be afforded to these children on the journey to their
  1024
  destination, and after their arrival thereat; whether persons of extra-European race will be allowed to engage such children; and whether any means will be taken to ensure that the chief of the tribe consenting to the engagement of such children is a fit and proper person to undertake that responsibility.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (MR. Churchill,): No recruiting of native labourers can take place except under a licence from one of the High Commissioners as provided in Article XXXI. Under Article XXX VII. the recruiter remains responsible for the natives whom he has engaged until they are handed over to the employer; and under Article XXXVIII. an official Report is to be immediately drawn up and sent to the competent authority if irregularities are detected in the operations of the recruiter. There is no provision in the Convention to prevent natives being engaged in the New Hebrides by persons of extra-European race, but they will of course, be subject, in such matters, to the legislation in force in the places in which they reside. If, when the Convention comes into operation it appears that the chiefs of the tribes are not competent to exercise their responsibilities as to the engagement of unmarried females, the High Commissioners will be able to introduce such regulations as may be necessary to ensure the protection desired.
  SIR W. EVANS GORDON: Can the hon. Gentleman inform us what practical steps will be taken to ensure that all persons to whom power is delegated in the supervision of contracts by which women and children are engaged are responsible people and fit to exercise that important duty?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have already informed the House that the English and French Commissioners will jointly consider these important matters, which have been hitherto unregulated.
  SIR W. EVANS GORDON: Have no powers been delegated hitherto?
  MR. CHURCHILL: There has been no efficient or general regulation of the system of recruiting.
  *LORD BALCARRES: What inspection will be secured to these women and children when indentured in foreign countries which neither belong to England nor to France?
  MR. CHURCHILL: Notice should be given of such a Question.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERWill these young females be allowed to be sent to New Caledonia?
  MR. CHURCHILL: That Question affects the French part of the Agreement, and I must have notice.
  MR. ASHLEYasked whether there was any provision for securing the knowledge of the ultimate destination of these women and children under the Convention.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid that the instructions for carrying out the Convention might be amplified to any extent by the Commissioners on the spot. These instructions were not yet prepared, and when they were prepared they would be found to deal with the points mentioned.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Do we understand that England will only have control over such natives as may be employed at Fiji and other British possessions and that France will have absolute control over those sent to New Caledonia, or is the control to be a joint control?
  MR. CHURCHILL: That is obviously a Question of which I should have notice.
  MR. LYTTELTONasked whether the hon. Gentleman stated as a matter of law and construction of documents that regulations could be made forbidding the employment of children.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I cannot reply without notice on a question of constitutional law.
  MR. STAVELEY HILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what regulations and system of inspection will be employed, in order to ensure that the
  1026
  recruiting and engagement of native labourers is carried out in accordance with the New Hebrides Convention; and, if so, will he lay the Papers upon the Table of the House.
  MR. CHURCHILL: It is impossible at this stage to forecast precisely what regulations may be necessary to supplement the provisions of the Convention in regard to the recruiting and engagement of native labourers in the New Hebrides. As to the system of inspection, I may refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 50 and 54 of the despatch printed on pages 53 to 66 of the recent Blue-book. Both regulations and the system of inspection will be settled in details by the High Commissioner and the Resident Commissioner, subject of course to the approval of His Majesty's Government, and the hon. Member may rest assured that they will be adequate. The question of publishing any correspondence on the subject will be considered when it has taken place.
  MR. STAVELEY HILL: Will there be female inspectors for the women?
  MR. CHURCHILL: That is a matter of detail not yet determined.
  MR. STAVELEY HILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the minimum height of children recruited under the terms of the New Hebrides Convention has yet been fixed.
  MR. CHURCHILL: As the hon. Member will have gathered from my reply on Tuesday to a Question of the hon. Member for the Ludlow division of Shropshire, the Answer is in the negative.†
  MR. WALKER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in any further negotiations with the French Government in regard to the exportation of labourers from the New Hebrides he will bear in mind the safeguards against abuses in the over-sea traffic under the British flag, contained in Section 3 of the Pacific Islanders' Protection Act of 1872, and seek to secure that, if this section be repealed, it shall be replaced by more stringent regulations acceptable to both
  †See Col. 706.

  1027
  Governments, and such as shall be made mandatory upon their nationals, whether in the islands or upon the high seas.
  MR. CHURCHILL: This matter is under consideration.
  MR. WALKER: Cannot we have some definite assurance on this matter?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I can give no assurances in reply to a supplementary Question.

  The Pacific Islanders' Protection Act, 1872.
  LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government intend to introduce a Bill amending the Pacific Islanders 'Protection Act, 1872, to give effect to the Convention between this country and France respecting the New Hebrides, as foreshadowed in the despatch to the Governor-General of Australia, dated 9th March 1906.
  MR. CHURCHILL: His Majesty's Government are advised that, for legal reasons, an Act of Parliament is desirable to empower His Majesty to carry out the provisions of the New Hebrides Convention; and it is proposed to take the opportunity to amend, as far as the New Hebrides are concerned, Section 3 of the Pacific Islanders' Protection Act, 1872, under which no British vessel can carry labourers from one island to another, even within the same group, unless the master has given a bond for £500. This sum has been found prohibitive in the case of small planters such as the British settlers in the New Hebrides, and has consequently had the most serious effect on British enterprise in those Islands. It is consequently proposed to dispense with the bond in cases where a resident British Officer can see that proper regulations are enforced for the control and supervision of recruiting.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication of the date when the Bill will be brought in?
  MR. CHURCHILL: Questions relating to the business of the House should be addressed to the Leader of the House.

  Indian Traders in Natal.
  SIR W. EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the attention of the Colonial Secretary has been drawn to the character of the recent application of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1897, in Tonga at village, Natal; whether he is aware that the licensing officer of that division declined to renew for this year the trading licenses of the larger portion of the Indian storekeepers, on the ground of their having failed to keep their business books in the English language; and whether, seeing that the licensing officer is the nominee of the local council or board, which is the sole court of appeal from his decisions, and that the members of such council or board are chiefly storekeepers, he will take steps to protect such Indian subjects from such a punishment as the loss of their livelihood and total ruin.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 18th to the hon. Member for the Brentford Division of Middlesex†with regard to the Dealers' Licences Act to which I presume it is intended to refer. Inquiry will be made with regard to the particular case referred to.

  Vrededorp Indian Traders.
  SIR W. EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps the Government have taken to protect the vested interests of, those British Indian residents of Vrededorp, Transvaal, who having paid sums of several hundreds of pounds each as transferees of their stands, and having been granted regular trading licences and built up business connections thereon will now, in terms of the Vrededorp Stands Ordinance, become dispossessed of their holdings; whether such persons will receive compensation; and whether, before sanctioning the Ordinance the attention of the Colonial Secretary was drawn to the entirely different treatment accorded to European transferees of these stands who in place of their squatter's title are to receive leases for terms of years.
  †See Col. 540.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am not able at present to add anything to the reply returned to a similar Question on Tuesday.†The suggestion that compensation should be given has been brought to the attention of the Transvaal Government.

  Opium in the New Hebrides.
  DR.RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it was ever brought to the notice of the French Government before the conclusion of the New Hebrides Convention that the Australasian Governments desired that opium as well as alcoholic liquors should be, under Article 59, prohibited from being supplied to the natives; and whether it was in consequence of objections made by the French that opium was not so included.
  MR. CHURCHILL: As stated in paragraph 55 of the despatch printed on pages 53–66 of the recent Blue-book respecting the New Hebrides Convention, and in the telegrams printed on pages 50 and 51, His Majesty's Government were prepared to adopt the suggestion that the supply of opium to natives should be prohibited; but they were unable to put the suggestion to the French Government for the reasons stated in paragraphs 66–71 of the despatch above mentioned. I may add that I am informed that opium smoking is unknown or very rare among the natives in the New Hebrides.

  Compensation for Workmen in the New Hebrides.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, considering the minimum scale of pay is 10s. a month for the indentured labourers recruited from the New Hebrides, he will consider the desirability of extending the principles of the Workmen's Compensation Act to these people, so that they may be ensured in case of accidents during their period of servitude.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The question of compensation for accidents to labourers serving outside the New Hebrides must, of course, be governed by the law of the place where they serve. With regard to labourers serving in the New Hebrides, His Majesty's Government doubt whether,
  †See Col. 706.
  1030
  having regard to the present social condition of the group, the principles of the Workmen's Compensation Act could be effectively applied; but no doubt the introduction of more regular systems of government and administration throughout the Group will pave the way for continual improvements in the laws affecting the employment of labourers. I may observe that the rate of 10s. a month, which is to be taken as the rate of wages where no other sum is mentioned on the record, has been fixed because, from the information available, it appears that that is a usual rate for newly-recruited labourers in the Group.

  Working Hours in the New Hebrides.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider the necessity of extending the compulsory one hour of rest accorded to the indentured labourer recruited in the New Hebrides, whose work extends from sunrise to sunset.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The hon. and gallant Member is mistaken in supposing that the work of indentured labourers in the New Hebrides extends from sunrise to sunset. There is nothing in the Convention to prescribe such a day's work; and as a matter of fact, the natives work mostly from 6 to 10 a.m. and from 3 to 7 p.m. The intention of Article XLV. is to put an end to the existing possibility of abuses, by forbidding compulsory night work, and by securing a period of rest to the labourer during the day.
  MR. ASHLEY: What guarantee is there against natives being compelled to work these long hours?
  MR. CHURCHILL: The High Commissioner has considerable powers for supervising the conditions under which the natives are employed, and those powers constitute an entirely new departure from the system of non-regulation which obtains at present.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Would it not have been better to prescribe two or three hours rest instead of one?
  *MR SPEAKER: That is a Question as to a matter of opinion.

  Holidays for Native Labourers.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether some further provisions for holidays can be instituted for the indentured labourers recruited in the New Hebrides, beyond that of the Sabbath Day, during the three years or more of their indenture.
  MR. CHURCHILL: There is at present no legal provision forbidding British planters in the New Hebrides to cause their labourers to work on Sundays. If it is found that the legal minimum of holidays is insufficient, His Majesty's Government will consider what steps can be taken to make further provisions.

  Re-engagement of Female Labourers.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, with reference to Article No. 40 of the New Hebrides Convention, the words "or she" will be added to insure that women may have the same rights as men with regard to being re-engaged only at their own free I will.
  MR. CHURCHILL: His Majesty's Government are advised that having regard to the provisions of Articles 33 and 40 of the Convention the provisions referring to male labourers in Article 40 apply to females. The suggested addition of the hon. and gallant Member therefore appears unnecessary.

  Colonial Governments and Conventions.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in future arrangements with regard to neighbouring islands, Colonial Governments will be consulted before Conventions are signed.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The hon. and gallant Member would have seen from the Blue-book on the subject, if he had studied it with ordinary attention, that the Colonial Governments concerned were fully consulted before His Majesty's Government were in any way committed to the New Hebrides Convention. This has been the usual practice in the past, and it will be continued as circumstances may permit in the future.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is it not the case that the Governments of New Zealand and Australia disclaim responsibility under this Convention, and that they throw the whole responsibility on the Government?
  MR. CHURCHILL: All matters connected with the framing and ratification of this Convention will be found by the hon. Member in the Blue-book if he will devote the necessary time to its perusal.

  New Transvaal Legislature.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the intention of the Secretary of State to approve nominations to the Upper Chamber of the Transvaal before the opinion of the majority of the Lower House has been consulted.
  MR. CHURCHILL: If my hon. friend will refer to Clause II. of the Letters Patent he will see that the first Council is to be summoned by the Governor, and that there is no reference to taking the opinion of the majority of the Lower House. The names of the members of the Council have been announced.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked whether the names nominated by Lord Selborne had been laid before the Colonial Office before being approved.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir; they have been most carefully considered, and much correspondence has proceeded with regard to all the gentlemen who have been nominated.

  Crown Agents and the Imperial Institute.
  MR. WALKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, seeing that the Crown Agents are not responsible to this House, by what means Parliamentary control will be secured over the expenditure of the sum of £1,400 which is to be granted to the Crown Agents towards the maintenance of the scientific and technical department of the Imperial Institute; whether this department is in future to be under the direction of the Crown Agents; and whether the Crown Agents will be entitled to draw any commission upon

  1033
  the sums that pass through their hands in this connection.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The sum of £1,400 is not granted to the Crown Agents, but paid to a fund opened at the Crown Agents' Office. Neither the fund nor the department at the Imperial Institute is in any sense under the direction of the Crown Agents. It is not intended to pay to the Crown Agents' Office any commission in connection with the matter.

  The Denshawi Affair.
  *MR DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the report that it is the intention of the Egyptian Government to promote Ahmed Bey Fathy Zaglool, who acted as judge in the Denshawi affair, to a higher position; and whether he will direct His Majesty's representative in Egypt to advise the Egyptian Government against such action.
  THE SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey,): His Majesty's Government have no information on the subject one way or the other. It does not appear to be a matter in which His Majesty's Government are called upon to interfere with the discretion of the Egyptian Government.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to give notice that on the earliest possible day I shall raise this Question.

  Madeira.
  SIR W. EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a Bill granting concessions to a German syndicate for the construction of hotels and the establishment of gambling rooms in the Island of Madeira has been introduced in the Portuguese Cortes; whether the said concessions contain clauses under which the concessionaires are exempted from the payment of import duty upon all materials they may bring into the island; and whether he can state to the House the result of any action which His Majesty's Government have taken in the matter.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I am informed that the Bill in question has been dropped, and it is therefore unnecessary to make any statement upon it.

  Irish College in Paris.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in 1818, the Government of England collected an indemnity from France on account of the destruction of the Irish College in Paris during the Reign of Terror; and, if so, can he say whether the sum so collected has ever since been paid over to the college authorities by the British authorities.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The arrangement to which the hon. Member refers is presumably that embodied in the Convention of 1818, whereby a sum of money was assigned by the French Government to a Commission appointed to adjudicate on the claims of British subjects for losses sustained during the French Revolution. Full information was furnished as to the expenditure of this fund in the Papers laid before the House in 1871 and 1872. The claims advanced by the Irish College in this connection were not admitted by the Commissioners, and rejected, on appeal, by the Privy Council. It would be impossible now to take any further action in the matter, and I can only adhere to the Answer given on 3rd August, 1896.

  Soudan War—Imprisoned Dervishes.
  DR.RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, notwithstanding that the war in the Soudan was concluded in 1899, several of the Dervish emirs or commanders are still imprisoned at Damietta, in Egypt, under severe disciplinary regulations; whether he will state the grounds for their continued incarceration; and whether, having regard to the present peaceful condition of the Soudan, he will recommend the authorities in Egypt to grant their immediate liberation.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have no information, but will make inquiries.

  Egyptian School Teachers.
  Dr.RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has been the proportion of British subjects to natives employed as teachers

  1035
  and inspectors in Egyptian Government schools above the grade of kuttabs (elementary) during the last five years.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The whole subject is dealt with in Lord Cromer's Report for last year, which will shortly be presented to Parliament.

  Egyptian Teachers' Salaries and Pensions.
  DR.RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the salaries and pensions payable to native and European teachers respectively in Egyptian Government schools above the grade of kuttab (elementary school); when were they fixed; within what period, if at all, and by how much, have they been augmented.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I will make inquiries and see whether the information desired by the hon. Member can be obtained.

  Pellagra in Egypt.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the prevalence in Egypt of the disease pellagra, resulting from the ingestion of bad maize, he will advise the Egyptian Government to take some such measures of prevention as have been prescribed by the Italian law against pellagra of the 21st July, 1902.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have no information on the subject, but will make inquiries.

  Military Conscription in Egypt.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the repeated official avowal that the present system of military conscription in Egypt, with exemption by purchase from ballot age, is a bad one, which cannot be defended on principle, as stated in Lord Cromer's Reports for 1904, p. 43, and 1905, p. 68; and in view of the fact that numbers of poor Egyptians annually sell their small possessions in order to purchase exemption, thus leaving the Army to be constituted by unwilling recruits, he will advise the Egyptian Government to take into consideration the expediency of establishing a system of paid military service, such as exists in Britain.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Lord Cromer, in the passages of his Reports cited by the hon. Member, gives the reasons which render the abolition of the present system difficult and inexpedient. The conditions of the country would make it impossible to introduce with success a military system such as exists in the United Kingdom; but the subject, as may be seen from Lord Cromer's Report, continues to engage attention.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: May I ask if that declaration is final? Will no other system be set up?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I said the subject continues to engage our attention. It therefore cannot be said to be final.

  Language in Egyptian Schools.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in the Government primary schools of Egypt object lessons and geography are taught in English only; that in the Government secondary schools history, geography, arithmetic, geometry, algebra, and science are taught in English or in French only; and that in the technical schools and professional colleges (with the exception of the school of law, where French is still partly used), all instruction is imparted in English only, and frequently by teachers who are quite unfamiliar with the vernacular; and whether, seeing that the employment of a foreign tongue as a medium of tuition increases the difficulty of acquiring accurate knowledge of any subject, and is regarded both by the, parents of pupils and the pupils themselves as an unnecessary hardship, he will advise the Egyptian Government to employ the vernacular henceforth as the sole medium of tuition.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The language question constitutes a very difficult problem for the Egyptian Educational Department, chiefly owing to the dearth of teachers competent to give the necessary instruction in Arabic and the absence of scientific text books in that language. In the circumstances, the Egyptian Government are frequently placed in the dilemma of either giving instruction in a European language, or being content with an inferior standard of teaching. And, in general, they have preferred the

  1037
  former alternative. They are, however, fully alive to the objections referred to by the hon. Member, and are doing their best to remedy them by training competent native teachers.

  Turkish Customs Duties.
  Earl PERCY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he proposes to lay Papers relating to the progress of reforms in the European vilayets of the Turkish Empire; whether His Majesty's Government have given their assent to the proposed increase of the Turkish Customs duties; and, if so, on what I conditions.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Papers on the subject are in the course of preparation, and will be laid in due course. The Answer to the last paragraph is in the negative, but the negotiations are in an advanced stage. In the event of the increase being agreed to, Papers will be laid which will fully explain the conditions.

  Railways in Morocco.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any railway concessions have been granted in Morocco; and, if so, to whom.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer is in the negative.

  Norwegian Trawlers in the Moray Firth.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a friendly arrangement could be made with the Norwegian Government to settle the question of trawling in the Moray Firth.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have no doubt that the Norwegian Government would be prepared to discuss the question with the view of coming to a friendly arrangement, but I must point out to the hon. Member that an arrangement between two Powers does not bind others and therefore could not dispose of the question. It must also be borne in mind that arrangements with other Powers would involve large questions of policy affecting the British fishing industry, which require careful consideration.
  MR. MORTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the so-called foreign trawlers are really British vessels built with British capital and possibly improperly, though legally, using the Norwegian flag?
  *MR SPEAKER: That hardly arises out of the Question on the Paper.

  New Hebrides Convention—Ratification.
  MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the French Government has decided finally to ratify the New Hebrides Convention by means of legislation.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The French Government decided in December that the Convention could be ratified by Presidential Decree, and ratifications of the Convention were exchanged on January 9th last.

  Aliens Act Return.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the reasons for which leave to land was refused, under the Aliens Act, 1905, by immigration officers, are classified in the Return presented to Parliament, only under the two headings Want of means, etc., and Medical grounds; and whether, as such headings do not give any exact information as to the operation of the Act, particularly with reference to persons sentenced in a foreign country for crime, and persons against who man expulsion order under the Act has been made, he will adopt another system of classification in future Returns.
  THE SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (MR. Gladstone,): In my opinion the classification in question gives the most exact information possible as to the operation of the Act in regard to refusals of leave to land, inasmuch as the refusals have, so far, all fallen under paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (3) of the first section of the Act, which deal respectively with want of means and medical grounds. If, and when, a refusal occurs under paragraphs (c) and (d), that is to say, in a case where a conviction of an extradition crime or the existence of an

  1039
  expulsion order is proved against an alien, it will of course be shown.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH asked as to certain figures in the Return.
  *MR SPEAKER: Order, order. The right hon. Gentleman could not possibly carry all those figures in his head.

  Factory Act—Extension of Particulars Section.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now considered the question of extending the Particulars Section of the Factory and Workshops Act to those sweated trades mainly carried on in workers' homes and not hitherto included within its provisions, many of which trades were demonstrated at the recent Sweating Exhibition.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir. I have recently issued the draft of an Order extending the requirements of Section 116 of the Factory Act to a large number of industries, including many of those in which home work is carried on. Inquiry into certain other industries is proceeding, but it has been thought best not to delay the issue of the present Order on account of those. I shall be happy to send the hon. Member a copy of the draft.

  Factory Inspection.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the number of factories not visited during 1906, and the number not visited since 1904; and whether he will give instructions for the district totals under these headings to be printed in the chief inspector's Annual Report.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The number of factories not visited during 1906 was 24,440. The number not visited since 1904 is 6,713. I do not think it would be desirable to include in the Annual Report a statement of the number of factories in each district not visited during the year or since 1904. Such figures would, as I indicated in a reply to a similar question by the hon. Member on 12th June last,† be misleading if con-
  †See (4) Debates, clviii., 819.
  1040
  sidered without reference to the character of the works or the nature of the district. The question of dealing with the arrears which arise in particular districts receives constant attention. Daring the last twelve months I have made three separate increases in the inspection staff, and I have for some time past been considering the question whether a further augmentation may not be necessary.

  Postal Packet Rates.
  MR. HODGE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the schedule of charges for the registration of postal packets is on a higher scale in the S.E. postal district as compared with the W.C. district; if he will inquire into, and report as to why such difference exists; if the Department only recognise one schedule of charges for registration of such, what he intends doing with the official responsible; and what, steps he intends to take to return to the public the sums overcharged.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (MR. Sydney Buxton,): The scale of charges for registration should, of course, be uniform throughout the United Kingdom. I am not aware that any exceptional charges have been demanded in the S.E. postal district of London. But if the hon. Member will be so good as to indicate the post office at which exceptional charges have been demanded, I will have the matter investigated.

  Post Offices on Licensed Premises.
  MR. LEIF JONES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will grant a Return giving a list of the 817 post offices, telegraph offices, and public telephone call offices, which according to the Return of May, 1906, are situated on licensed premises in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The preparation and printing of the detailed Return for which the hon. Member asks would involve considerable expense which does not seem justified.

  School Teachers and the County Council Election.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the President of the

  1041
  Board of Education if he is aware that MR. Alderman Whur, one of the foundation managers of St. Peter's School, Paddington, in the course of a visit to the school last week, approached the head master with a request that he would use his influence with the parents of his scholars to obtain their votes for the Moderate candidates at the forthcoming London County Council election; and, if so, whether he will state if Mr. Whur, after making such use of his position, is to be allowed to retain it.
  THE PRESIDENT of the BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. McKenna,): My attention has not been officially called to the incidents referred to in my hon. friend's Question, and I do not see what power I have to intervene in the matter; but I may say that I should view with great regret any instance of a head teacher using his influence with parents for political purposes.

  Manchester Police Stations and Children's Meals.
  MR. THORNE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Manchester Education Committee is utilising the police stations as depots for the supply of meals to school children under the Education (Provision of Meals) Act, 1906; and whether the police stations would be considered as canteens within the meaning of the Act.
  MR. McKENNA: I have no information on the matter referred to in the Question, nor would it, so far as I am aware, come within the province of the Board of Education. The Act only speaks of canteen committees, not of canteens.

  Education Grants.
  MR. GODDARD: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is prepared, pending the consideration of the proposed amalgamation of the existing grants for elementary education, to take any steps to remedy the inconvenience to many local education authorities which has arisen during the current financial year owing to the abandonment by the Board of Education of the quarterly system of paying the annual grants.
  MR. McKENNA:The arrangement by which certain limited sums were in some cases paid in advance was a purely temporary expedient to meet difficulties arising from the coming into operation of the Education Acts 1902 and 1903. Full notice was given to Local Education Authorities of the discontinuance of these payments, and I regret I cannot see my way to resume them, but I have under consideration the whole question of the methods by which the grants in respect of elementary education are paid with a view to ascertaining what changes can be made.

  Inspectors of Welsh Education.
  MR. WALROND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education what salaries will be paid to the Secretary and Chief Inspector of Welsh education; if they are pensionable; and if they are required to devote their whole time to the public service.
  MR. McKENNA: The Answer to the first part of the paragraph is £1,200 to each. The Answer to the second and third paragraphs is in the affirmative.

  Passive Resistance.
  MR. GEORGE WHITE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill dealing with the questions involved in the following Amendment to the Address, which was not reached during the debate yesterday:—"That this House expresses its deep regret that in His Majesty's gracious Speech from the Throne no promise is made to remove the grievance under which many of the loyal subjects of His Majesty are made to suffer distraint or imprisonment because, for conscience sake, they cannot pay rates for denominational teaching, though this House has recorded its conviction by a large majority that such an impost is unjust and ought to be removed."
  MR. McKENNA: I propose on Tuesday to introduce a Bill which I hope will prove what would have been a satisfactory Answer to my hon. friend had he been able to move his Amendment.
  *MR CLOUGH: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there was a second

  1043
  Amendment to the Address dealing with Education; and will the proposed Bill also deal satisfactorily with the subject embodied in that second Amendment?
  MR. McKENNA: I must ask for notice of that.

  The Elliot Junction Railway Accident.
  MR. LAIDLAW: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state when the Report of the inquiry in connection with the Elliot Junction disaster will be published; and if any steps are being taken to reduce the chances of railway accidents in snow storms.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (MR. Kearley,): The Report of the Inspecting Officer who held an inquiry into this regrettable accident—by which this House lost a distinguished Member—is practically completed, but it is not proposed to publish it until after the conclusion of certain criminal proceedings which have been instituted against one of the railway servants concerned. The Board of Trade are informed that steps have already been taken to provide in future for the employment of fog signalmen during snowstorms.

  Equalisation of Railway Rates.
  MR. HOOPER: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to an agreement commencing in its operation on 1st January, 1907, entered into by practically all the railway companies of England, having for its purpose the equalisation of rates and prevention of competition, but excepting from such agreement foreign traffic; and, if so, whether such an agreement will be sanctioned by the Board of Trade under the provisions of The Railway Companies Powers Act, 1864; and whether a copy of such agreement can be obtained by the Board of Trade and laid upon the Table of this House.
  MR. KEARLEY: The Board of Trade are informed that the object of the arrangement referred to is to bring to an end a practice under which certain agents have allowed, out of the remuneration they received from the companies, rebates of varying amount to traders for the pur-
  1044
  pose of securing traffic. Working arrangements between companies are subject to the approval, not of the Board of Trade, but of the Railway and Canal Commission. The Board are in communication with the Railway Companies Association which represents railway companies generally with a view to obtaining information on the subject.

  Liverpool Railway Servants' Hours of Labour.
  MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the number of hours worked by the engine drivers and firemen at the Walton and Brunswick Sheds, Liverpool, Midland Railway, during the months of November and December, 1906, and January, 1907, the hours worked on goods trains reaching up to a total of fifteen and even twenty hours per day, and on express passenger trains to twelve and thirteen per day, and can he say what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. KEARLEY: No representations with regard to the hours of engine men at these particular sheds have been received, but if the hon. Member has any information in the nature of a complaint or representation and will communicate it, the Board of Trade will have an investigation made.

  Leeds Railway Servants' Working Hours.
  MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the result of the inquiry made in December last into the hours worked by the drivers and firemen at the Midland Railway locomotive depot, Leeds; whether he is aware that the company mentioned continue to work the men at this depot frequently thirteen, fifteen, seventeen, and more hours per day; and what steps he now proposes to take, if any, to secure a permanent reduction of these long hours.
  MR. KEARLEY: Returns obtained from the Midland Railway Company of the hours worked by the drivers and firemen in question show that the hours had in many instances reached the limits mentioned. My right hon. friend is seriously considering what action can be

  1045
  taken to deal with the question of the hours of railway servants generally.

  Royal Commission on Tuberculosis.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, what is the amount of public money spent on the proceedings of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis, appointed in August, 1901; and whether the accounts will be submitted to Parliament in due course.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Runciman,): The expenditure on this Commission out of the Vote for Temporary Commissions up to the 31st January, 1907, has been £46,193. I understand that liabilities have also been incurred to the amount of £2,700 for stationery and printing. The audited expenditure appears year by year in the Appropriation Accounts presented to Parliament.

  Scottish Education Bill.
  MR. GULLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his proposed Education Bill for Scotland will include the provision of meals for school children; and whether he will consider the granting of powers for medical inspection and for the establishment of play centres, more stringent regulations for enforcing compulsory attendance, and the extension of the definition of cruelty, so that parents may be prosecuted who allow their children to be insufficiently clothed or verminous
  THE SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Sinclair,): Provision of meals will be included. The various other matters mentioned by my hon. friend are under consideration, but it is not possible as yet to give any further information in regard to the contents of the Bill.

  Scottish Rights of Way.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate, in view of the dissatisfaction felt in Scotland with the inaction of county councils in defending public rights of way, if he will introduce legislation giving parish councils and landward committees power to initiate such actions.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I am in sympathy with the purpose of my hon. friend, but it is not possible for me to give an undertaking to introduce legislation on the subject during the present session.

  Irish Labourers' Cottages.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that no provisions exist in the case of labourers living in an urban district for getting cottages built in the rural district; and whether any rule can be made which will facilitate the extension of the Act of 1906 to such cases.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (MR. Cherry,): The councils of urban districts are themselves empowered to provide cottages under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts. If cottages were provided by the council of a rural district for the accommodation of labourers living in an urban district, the ratepayers of the rural and not the urban district would have to bear the entire cost. No rule could, therefore, in my opinion, justly be made, such as the hon. Member suggests.
  MR. JOYCE: Will the Government look into this matter with a view to giving power to the councils to deal with cases of labourers in towns who are badly housed?
  MR. CHERRY: I am afraid there would be considerable difficulty in the matter, because the proceedings in rural districts are under a different Act of Parliament from those in town.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: In view of the strong feeling that something should be done in this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman see if he cannot cheapen and facilitate generally the procedure?
  MR. CHERRY: I will see what can be done.

  Irish Land Purchase.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the total value of land agreed to be purchased

  1047
  under the Act of 1903 up to date, the total amount of money already paid in respect of these agreements, and what is the cause of the delay of completing the purchases in the remaining cases; and whether this arises from the insufficiency of money raised for this purpose or of the staff engaged in the work.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell,): The total amount of the advances applied for, including purchases by the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board, is £45,499,682, and the total amount of the advances sanctioned is £16,088,919. I gather that land purchase has proceeded with much greater rapidity than was anticipated when the Act of 1903 was parsed. The Estates Commissioners are using all possible despatch in making advances. Their staff has from time to time been increased and the question of further increasing it is now under consideration. I understand that a million and a half of the last issue of land stock still remains available for advances.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Seeing there is a widespread impression that years have to elapse between the completion of an agreement and the payment of the money, with the result that many landowners are holding back from selling, will the right hon. Gentleman devise some means of quickening the procedure?
  MR. BIRRELLsaid he was straining every nerve to secure the means to enable the system to work as rapidly as possible.

  Land Purchase in County Roscommon.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the amount of land for the purchase of which agreements have been made under the Land Act of 1903 up to date, giving amount of purchase money, the the number of estates and of tenants involved in the county Roscommon, also the same particulars in regard to the purchases completed.
  MR. BIRRELL: Applications have been made for advances in respect of 144 estates in county Roscommon, the number of holdings being 5,587, and the amount of the purchase money £1,424,661. The
  1048
  total area of the lands has not yet been ascertained. Advances have been made in respect of forty-one estates comprising 2,601 holdings with an area of 62,122 acres, the purchase money being £686,916.

  Winn Estate, Glenbeigh.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the terms on which the Winn estate at Glenbeigh, recently purchased by the Congested Districts Board, will be resold to the occupying tenants; what is the number of years' purchase of the rent; and what decision has been arrived at with respect to the sporting rights.
  MR. BIRRELL: This estate is to be sold to the tenants at the price which the Congested Districts Board paid for it, namely, seventeen-and-a-half years purchase, plus £200 for the game rights. Any advances which may be made to individual tenants for the building or improvement of houses are to be added to the purchase price. The holdings are to be sold exclusive of game rights, but upon the completion of the sale the game rights are to be conveyed to a committee nominated by the tenants, and the revenue is to be applied by the committee to the purposes which they may consider most beneficial to the property. The tenants have agreed to these terms.

  Morley Estate, Cavan.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state what is the position of the sale of the Morley estate, county Cavan.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are at present having the circumstances of this estate investigated by two of their inspectors with the object of making an offer to purchase it under Section 6 of the Act of 1903.

  Fair Rent Appeals.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many appeals from fair rent decisions of the Sub-Commission were pending on the 31st January, 1907; and how many appeals have been struck out with leave to re-enter since 30th September, 1906.
  MR. BIRRELL: The number of appeals pending on 31st January, 1907, was 7,367. The total number struck out since 30th September, 1906, was 808, and the great majority of these were struck out with leave to re-enter.

  O'Dwyer Estate, Tipperary.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the sale of the O'Dwyer estate, county Tipperary; will he say if the evicted tenant, Patrick Hogan, has been reinstated; how many tenants are there on this estate; what is the purchase price; was it arrived at by consent; was any negotiating fee allowed; and, if so, how much and to whom was the same assigned.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that no proceedings for the sale of this estate have been instituted before them, and they have not been able to arrange for Hogan's reinstatement upon the evicted farm. In the event, however, of the Commissioners acquiring any untenanted land in the locality they will consider the question of allotting a portion of it to Hogan.

  Land Act Sales.
  MR. GIBBS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the sales under the Land Act, 1903, are being taken and payments are therefore being made according to priority of application, or whether it is the intention of the Government to devote the money at their disposal primarily to the purchase of waste lands and of estates upon which evicted tenants are to be reinstated.
  MR. BIRRELL: If the hon. Member will refer to the first clause of the regulations of the Lord-Lieutenant, dated 13th February, 1906, which were laid on the Table of the House, he will find the procedure as to priority fully stated. There is no present intention of altering these regulations.
  MR. LONSDALE: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to give priority to the cases of evicted tenants?
  MR. BIRRELLasked for notice.

  Thompson Estate, Clonfin.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now able to say if the Thompson estate at Clonfin, in North Longford, will be purchased as untenanted land for distribution amongst the evicted tenants in county Longford by the Estates Commissioners.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have, at the instance of the hon. Member, communicated with the solicitors for the mortgagees of this estate, who have replied that their clients, being mortgagees of a life interest only, are not in a position to sell either to the Commissioners or to the tenants. The Commissioners have so far been unable to discover what persons, if any, are entitled to sell.

  O'Brien Estate, Corglass.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any progress has been made by the Estates Commissioners towards securing the sale of the O'Brien estate at Cornakelly and Corglass in North Longford, which sale has now been pending for nearly seven years.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners had this estate inspected with a view to purchase last year, but found it necessary to raise certain queries on their inspector's report. They hope to be in a position shortly to make an offer to the Land Judge for the purchase of the estate. They have no information as to the length of time during which the estate may have been for sale.

  Irish School Returns.
  MR. BRIGG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will furnish the number of elementary schools in Ireland, and the number in which compulsory education exists under the powers of The Irish Education Act, 1892; and the number which are in operation under the powers of The Local Government Act (Ireland), 1898.
  MR. BIRRELL: According to the latest Returns, the number of National schools in Ireland is 8,659. Of this

  1051
  number 1,088 are in urban districts, to which the compulsory attendance provisions of the Irish Education Act, 1892, apply; and 2,512 are in rural districts to which the compulsory attendance provisions quoted have been applied by county councils under the Local Government Act of 1898.

  Belfast Death Rate.
  MR. M'KILLOP: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a Commission is being appointed to inquire into the high death-rate in Belfast and the sanitary regulations in that city; that the names already published do not include any unofficial member of the medical profession; and whether, in view of the importance of the question, he will consider the advisability of appointing to the Commission some such representative acquainted with the laws of sanitation in Ireland.
  MR. BIRRELL: I understand that my predecessor gave the most careful consideration to the constitution of the Departmental Committee which has been appointed to inquire into the sanitary condition of Belfast, and there appears to be no sufficient reason for adding to the number. In addition to the expert knowledge possessed by the official medical members who have been appointed, the Committee will doubtless have the advantage of hearing the views of a number of eminent members of the medical profession who are fully acquainted with the sanitary condition of Belfast, and with the laws of sanitation generally.
  In answer to MR. Mooney,
  MR. BIRRELLsaid the Medical Officer of Health for Glasgow had been asked to report on the subject.
  MR. MOONEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of any case in which an Irish Medical Officer of Health has been asked to report on the sanitary conditions of a Scottish town?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Irish Teachers' Pension Fund.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-
  1052
  Lieutenant of Ireland if he can lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the actuary appointed by the Government to inquire into the condition of the Irish Teachers' Pension Fund.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The Report of the actuary appointed by the Government, as well as the Report of the actuary appointed by the teachers, are about to be laid on the Table of the House.

  The Hague Conference.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether any arrangement has been come to between the Powers who will be represented at the approaching Conference at the Hague as to the matters there to be discussed; and whether the question of disarmament will be submitted to the Conference.
  THE CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (MR. Asquith,) (for the Prime Minister): No final arrangement has yet been come to between the Powers as to the subjects to be discussed at the Conference, and I can only refer the hon. Member to the reply on the same subject given by the Prime Minister to my hon. friend the Member for South Bucks on the 19th inst.†
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: When will the Conference assemble?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The actual date has not been fixed, but it will probably be in June.

  New Hebrides Convention.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister, whether an opportunity will be given to the House for the discussion of the terms of the New Hebrides Convention.
  MR. ASQUITH: An opportunity for discussion will be afforded on the Bill which is to be introduced this Session for amending the Pacific Islanders' Protection Act.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask when the Bill will be introduced?
  MR. ASQUITH: I cannot say.
  †See Col. 696.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give no indication at all?
  MR. ASQUITH: None.

  National Gold Reserve.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask MR. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been directed to the opinion expressed on 15th January by the President of the Institute of Bankers, that he deprecated legislation on the question of the national gold reserve, but that to avoid it the banks must take the responsibility and the duty on themselves; whether he is aware that the profits of the leading banks enable them to pay dividends ranging from 15 to 20 per cent; and whether he can now see his way to take any definite steps in the important matter of the gold reserves.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am aware of the facts referred to by my hon. friend, though, quite apart from the Bank of England, I believe there are banks, which may fairly be called "leading banks," whose rate of dividend is not as high as he suggests. The question of the gold reserves is one which peculiarly requires careful and cautious handling; but I am not without hope that something in the nature of a general agreement of a practical character may be arrived at among the various interests concerned.

  Taxes on Food and Drink.
  MR. R. DUNCAN: I beg to ask MR. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can give the figures of Revenue of the United Kingdom in the year 1906, in separate items, as derived from duties on sugar, tea, tobacco, intoxicating liquors, and minor articles of bodily consumption.
  MR. ASQUITH: The following are the figures for the calendar year 1906—

  £

  Sugar, glucose, and saccharin

  6,538,753

  Tea

  5,936,467

  Tobacco

  13,304,298

  Beer

  13,167,778

  Spirits

  21,618,570

  Wine

  1,232,827

  Coffee, cocoa, chocolate, and chicory

  506,623

  Dried fruit

  476,306

  MR. R. DUNCAN: I only wanted the figures affecting imported articles.
  MR. ASQUITH: I will separate them for the hon. Member and give him the totals exclusive of the Excise.

  Income-tax.
  MR. McCRAE: I beg to ask MR. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state in how many districts in London final notices for the payment of income-tax within seven days were issued prior to 16th February, whether such notices were served on all taxpayers in each district whose income-tax was unpaid at that date; and if he can state in how many districts the issue of second notices had not been completed on 16th February.
  MR. ASQUITH: To answer my hon. friend's Question it would be necessary to call for returns from the several collectors, some 275 in number. To do so at the present moment would be a somewhat serious interference with the business of collection, which is still in progress; but in due course I will see that the information is obtained.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer give the House an indication of the course of business next week?
  MR. ASQUITH: On Monday the business will be going into Committee on the Army Estimates and moving the Speaker out of the Chair, when the Secretary for War will make his statement. On Tuesday the President of the Board of Education will, under the Ten Minutes Rule, introduce the Education Bill to which my right hon. friend has referred, and the Government propose that the remainder of the sitting on Tuesday should, if necessary, be devoted to the report of the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates. On Wednesday and Thursday we shall take the Army Estimates, Votes A and I, and Army Supplementary Estimates.

  ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "giving the number of Arrests for Drunkenness within the Metropolitan Police District of Dublin and the Cities of Belfast, Cork, Limerick, and Waterford, from the hour of 9 p.m. to 12 midnight on Saturdays, and from 12 midnight to 8 a.m. on Sundays, and from 8 a.m. on Sunday till 2 p.m., and from 2 p.m. to 7 p.m., from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., from 9 p.m. to 12 midnight, from 12 midnight to 8 a.m. on Monday, between the 1st day of May, 1905, and 31st day of December, 1906, both days inclusive, the arrests being given from 8 a.m. on Sundays till 8 a.m. on Mondays; and similar Returns for the rest of Ireland from the 1st day of May, 1905, to the 31st day of December, 1906."—(Mr. Sloan.)

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Sir William Brampton Gurdon reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on the Standing Committee for the consideration of all Bills relating to Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Snipping, and Manufactures, which may, by Order of the House, be committed to such Standing Committee:—Mr. Attorney-General, Sir Frederick Cawley, Mr. Evelyn Cecil, Sir Francis Channing, Mr. Cheetham, Mr. Courthope, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Crombie, Mr. Alexander Cross, Mr. Cullinan, Mr. David Davies, Mr. Vaughan-Davies, Mr. Timothy Davies, Sir Frederick Dixon-Hartland, Mr. Duckworth, Mr. Charles Duncan, Mr. Everett, Mr. Ferens, Mr. Munro Ferguson, Sir Christopher Furness, Mr. Haddock, Colonel Harrison-Broadley, Mr. Hayden, Mr. Hooper, Mr. Idris, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Kearley, Mr. Kettle, Mr. Lane-Fox, Mr. Lloyd-George, Colonel Long, Mr. Walter Long, Mr. Bonar Law, Mr. Manfield, Mr. Mansfield, Mr. Jeremiah MacVeagh, Mr. M'Killop, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Charles Nicholson, Mr. Nicholls, Mr. Parkes, Mr. Partington, Major Renton, Mr. Thomas Richards, Sir George Robertson, Mr. John Robertson, Mr. Robinson, Sir Robert Ropner, Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Shackleton, Mr. Smeaton, Mr. Soames, Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland, Sir Edward Strachey, Mr. John Talbot, Mr. Austin Taylor, Mr. Theodore Taylor, Mr. David
  1056
  Alfred Thomas, Mr. Verney, Mr. Walrond, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Cathcart Wason, Mr. George White, Mr. Osmond Williams, Lord Willoughby de Eresby, Mr. Wolff, and Mr. Young.
  Sir William Brampton Gurdon further reported from the Committee; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on the Standing Commitee for the consideration of all Bills relating to Law, and Courts of Justice, and LegalProcedure which may, by Order of the House, be committed to such Standing Committee:—The Lord-Advocate, Mr. William Abraham (Cork), Mr. Adkins, Mr. Harmood-Banner, Mr. Barnard, Mr. Barran, Mr. Beckett, Mr. Billson, Mr. Boland, Mr. Bowles, Mr. Brace, Mr. Bright, Mr. Cave, Mr. Chance, Mr. Clynes, Mr. Cobbold, Mr. Cochrane, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Herbert Craig, Mr. Charles Craig, Mr. Ellis Davies, Mr. Dickinson, Mr. Clement Edwards, Mr. Evans, Mr. George Faber (York), Mr. Fletcher, Mr. Flynn, Sir Henry Fowler, Mr. Gwynne, Mr. Harwood, Mr. James Haslam, Mr. Healy, Colonel Ivor Herbert, Mr. Higham, Mr. Hodge, Mr. Bateman Hope, Sir John Jardine, Mr. Vincent Kennedy, Sir Joseph Leese, Mr. Lambton, Mr. Lehmann, Sir Francis Lowe, Mr. Arthur Lee, Mr. Maddison, Mr. Massie, Mr. Lloyd Morgan, Mr. Nannetti, Mr. Napier, Mr. Nussey, Mr. Pike Pease, Mr. Pickersgill, Sir Francis Powell, Mr. Rainy, Mr. Rees, Mr. Compton Rickett, Mr. Samuel Roberts, Mr. Charles Roberts, Mr. Soares, Mr. Solicitor-General, Sir Benjamin Stone, Mr. John Taylor, Mr. Thornton, Sir Howard Vincent, Mr. Waldron, Mr. Joseph Walton, Mr. Walker, and Mr. Whitehead.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES) (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
  Sir William Brampton Gurdon reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had selected the following Six Members to be the Chairmen's Panel and to serve as Chairmen of the two Standing Committees to be appointed under Standing Order No. 49:—Sir Thomas Esmonde, MR. Laurence Hardy, Sir David Brynmor Jones, MR. Stuart-Wortley, MR. Eugene Wason, and MR. James William Wilson.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  NEW BILLS.
    CORONERS BILL.
    "To dispense with the compulsory viewing of bodies on the holding of Coroners' inquests," presented by MR. Luke White; supported by MR. Bramsdon, MR. John Wilson, MR. Cameron, MR. Toulmin, MR. Arther Henderson, and MR. Summerbell; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 9th April, and to be printed. [Bill 58.]
    SHOPS (No. 2) BILL.
    "To amend the Law relating to Shops," presented by Sir Charles Dilke; supported by MR. Bowerman, MR. Timothy Davies, MR. Arthur Henderson, MR. McCrae, MR. Nannetti, MR. Alfred Scott, MR. Seddon, MR. Tennant, and MR. Wedgwood; to be read a second time upon Friday, 1st March, and to be printed. [Bill 59.]
    HOME WORK REGULATION BILL.
    "To provide for the better Regulation of Home Industries," presented by MR. Ramsay Macdonald; supported by MR. Crooks, MR. Fenwick, MR. George Roberts, MR. Ernest Lamb, MR. Billson, MR. Fiennes, Sir Gilbert Parker, and MR. Mitchell-Thomson; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 60.]

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [MR. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1906–7.

    CLASS I.
    1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
    COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid that a large amount of pruning and lopping had been done to
    1058
    certain trees in Kensington Gardens, and he would like to ask the First Commissioner of Works whose advice he had followed in the matter, and what was the nature of the advice. He did not believe the right hon. Gentleman had taken such action on his own initiative. As one who was interested in forestry, he had looked at the cutting and lopping which had been done, and he was bound to say that he saw no reason for the public alarm and irritation with which it had been viewed. There were some very valuable trees in Kensington Gardens, and the elm trees there were magnificent, but the elm was one of those trees which were most dangerous to the public. There was no doubt there had been an accident, a young girl having been killed in the gardens by a large bough of a tree suddenly falling. He would be glad, however, to hear upon whose advice the right hon. Gentleman had acted, and also what course he intended to pursue as regards the trees in general. There was no doubt that some of the trees in Kensington Gardens were absolutely destroyed from an æsthetic point of view.
    *THE CHAIRMAN*THE CHAIRMAN explained that the Supplementary Estimates only dealt with the wages of the gardeners, etc., and did not involve the whole policy of the Office of Works in regard to the upkeep of the parks. He did not, therefore, think the right hon. Member's remarks were in order on the Estimates under consideration.
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD COLONEL LOCKWOOD thought that some of these wages would be used for the purpose of enabling the men to cut the trees.
    MR. DILLON, on a point of order, asked what these labourers had to do, and for what purpose the extra remuneration was required.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid the question of policy as to the parks could not be opened up on this Vote, except as regarded some new factor affecting the wages of the labourers and gangers.
    *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (MR. Harcourt,)said that as the question had been raised, he hoped the Chairman would

    1059
    allow the rule of order to be stretched a little in order to allow of this question, which was one of interest, being gone into.
    MR. MORTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could tell them on what works these gangers and labourers receiving extra remuneration were employed? Would he also tell them what the "etcetera" meant?
    COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid he would not continue the point he had raised. He would leave the question of the parks, and would ask what the amount was for extra wages, and whether the men so employed were skilled gardeners and skilled woodmen, or whether they were taken incidentally from the ranks of the unemployed to do work that ought to be the business of skilled gardeners.
    MR. DILLON MR. DILLON, on a point of order, said he observed that included in the Estimate was "maintenance and repairs, "and he wanted to know whether the increase was for wages of labourers and gangers alone. He presumed the "etcetera" referred to the cost of maintenance and repairs.
    *MR HARCOURT: The increase is purely wages.
    *THE CHAIRMANsaid the questions of policy raised should not come under this Vote. He had looked at it carefully.
    COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid he would keep to the ruling; but another point he wished to raise had reference to the provision and maintenance of a refreshment kiosk, or refreshment garden in Hyde Park. Would that be within the ruling?
    *The CHAIRMAN: I think that clearly comes within the ruling.
    MR. COURTHOPEsaid he desired to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether the additional £2,300 required was owing to the increase of wages or to the increase of the number of men employed, because it was not clear which, and the Committee was entitled to know something about it, and also
    1060
    whether the labour was skilled or unskilled. If there had been an increase in the number of men employed, he would like to know whether the increase was due to relief works for the unemployed, or anything of that kind. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to satisfy them as to the reason for this increase of £2,300, and also what was due to the dispute which took place last year on the question of the new railings in Regent's Park. He moved to reduce the Vote by £100.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,200, be granted for the said Service."—(MR. Courthope.)
    *MR. HARCOURTsaid he would not go at length into the question of policy relating to parks and gardens, though he knew it was a matter in which hon. Members were interested, but he desired to say a few words, not by way of defence, but of explanation. It had been rightly assumed that he had obtained good advice. He had asked the advice of selected foresters from the large estates of England, and he had requested them to give him help, though he accepted full responsibility for what he had done. Hon. Members would be glad to know, however, that he had not done it without the best expert advice.
    SIR J. BRUNNER: Have you had any communication with Kew Gardens?
    *MR. HARCOURTsaid he had been in constant communication with both Kew and Edinburgh. But he might say that he had not been nearly so drastic in his treatment of Kensington Gardens as the recommendations of the foresters. He had only cut "smack smooth," as a woodman would say, one third of the trees recommended by the foresters to be felled, and he had only lopped and pollarded less than one half of the number they had suggested should be so treated. Every tree in Kensington Gardens was numbered, and its present state and future necessities were pretty well known. A register of them was kept, and they were dealt with systematically in that way. But experience

    1061
    in the treatment of elms had shown that a certain age, 150 years or 180 years, was the full age for lopping and pollarding, as the only thing to preserve their life. The elms on the Crown lands at Windsor had begun to fall down and disappear altogether. They were planted in the reign of William III. Most of the elms in Kensington Gardens, certainly in the Broad Walk, were planted in the reign of Queen Anne. Many of the elms in Kensington Gardens were lopped fifteen or twenty years ago. It was necessary to perform the operation of lopping and pollarding for the safety of the public, and it had been necessary to cut back into the sound wood in order to stop further decay.
    *The CHAIRMANsaid the right hon. Gentleman was going at length into a subject which he had not allowed to be discussed upon this Vote. If he was to do that the same liberty must be allowed to other Members.
    *MR. HARCOURTsaid he hoped, from what he had said, that hon. Members would be generally satisfied with the position he had taken up in regard to Kensington Gardens, and in reference to the policy to be pursued there in future. The labourers and gangers were workmen who dealt with the whole of the parks. The "etcetera" meant other people employed in the parks who could not be described as labourers and gangers—the park keepers, for instance. He had promised during the discussion on the Estimates on the 7th May, that he would raise the wages of the park labourers in London from 24s. to 27s. a week, which was the rate paid by the London County Council. In the country, he raised the wages from 21s. to 23s. That was the pledge which he had given on the Vote, and which he had now carried out. It was asked why that was not included in the estimates of last year; but the Estimates of a Public Department were prepared either in December or January. He took office, he thought, on the 12th of December, when the Estimates of his Department were practically ready; and the question of the wages of the park labourers was not brought to his attention until the Estimate had gone into the Treasury. Then he received a deputa-
    1062
    tion from the park-keepers and other men, and he promised that he would deal with the question; and the whole of this sum was purely for increased wages. The increase was not at all due to any employment of the unemployed. Some of the unemployed were engaged on the making of the new frame ground in Hyde Park, and of a new road in Richmond Park, but their wages were paid by the Unemployed Central Committee.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was sure they were all obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his willingness to give such information as the rules permitted on a subject which had caused a good deal of interest. On another point he wished to know if these men were ordinary unskilled labourers.
    *MR HARCOURT: Some of them.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that 27s. instead of 24s. would be for an unskilled workman.
    *MR HARCOURT: Yes, he is unskilled before he is employed.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that what he wanted to know was, whether a similar rise in wages was going to be paid to unskilled labourers in other parts of London, such as those employed by the Post Office, and those in Government employment at Deptford and Woolwich, who were being paid rather lower wages than those employed in the parks. He assumed it was proposed to apply the same principle throughout and pay the same wages at Deptford and Woolwich to unskilled labourers.
    MR. SHACKLETONsaid he was anxious that the public should receive more benefit from this expenditure. The use of the roads in the park was at present limited to motor-cars and carriages, and nobody else could use them for vehicles. That was altogether wrong. He did not keep a motor-car or carriage, and the only thing of that kind he ever owned was a perambulator. He would not be able to use those roads in the park if he hired a cab in the street.
    *The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is trenching upon a question of policy which does not now arise.
    MR. MORTON: But surely labour is used for the roads.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: If I allow such matters to be discussed there would be no question that cannot be brought in with regard to the whole policy of the parks. The line is often difficult to draw, but I draw it as fairly as I can.
    MR. MORTONsaid that apparently all they could do was to vote against the amount asked for.
    *The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is always entitled to do that.
    MR. ASHLEYsupposed the unskilled labourers referred to included the park-keepers, who were mostly old soldiers in the receipt of pensions. He would like to know if the pensions were taken into account in determining the wages.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid the sum now being asked for was no trifling addition to the total. The original Estimate for wages was £14,310, and therefore the £2,300 now being asked for was a substantial increase. He thought they were entitled to some further explanation, because under the heading of "maintenance, and repairs" were included the salaries of rangers and bailiffs, and if this money was being expended exclusively in London on the Royal Parks, it would inevitably create a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst all other labourers of that class in the employment of the Government. It was not so much the few pounds which this Estimate represented, but the serious proportion it bore to the total wages.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid it had already been pointed out that the increase in this expenditure upon wages was very large. He wished to call attention to the fact that the increase was for eight months only and not for a year. If the expenditure was to increase at this rate it would
    1064
    constitute an enormous increase on the original sum of £14,000. He would like to know if the right hon. Gentleman could not have these matters put a little more clearly in the estimates. The item was "For increase in the wages of gangers, labourers, etc." He supposed the gangers were foremen in receipt of adequate wages. It did not always follow that because they raised the wages of unskilled labourers they ought also to raise the wages of the foremen. He understood that the gangers received from 48s. to 53s. per week. He supposed the position was about equal to that of a head gardener, but very few head gardeners got 50s. a week. If there had also been an increase in the wages of gangers there ought to be some explanation given. With regard to the park keepers, their only duty appeared to be to walk about the parks nicely dressed, watching what was going on. Nobody wished to deal hardly with these men. They all wished to give them a fair and reasonable wage, but if they raised the wages of these men it was certain that all engaged in similar occupations should receive like treatment.
    MR. LEIF JONESasked if it was in order to discuss the wages of other departments on this Vote?
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid he was not discussing the wages of other departments; he was simply pointing out what the result would be. He understood that the position of the Treasury in this matter was that of a kind of watch dog over expenditure, and there had been a substantial increase in this particular item.
    *MR HARCOURTsaid he wished to draw attention first of all to the way in which the matter of the necessary increase of wages in the London parks had been treated by the Party opposite. He was pressed pretty generally last year to make what was considered a fair concession to these men. He was anxious to do so, because he wanted to put in operation the fair wages Resolution which was passed when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office. He inquired what was the

    1065
    current rate—what was paid by the London County Council and the best private employers. [Cries of "Oh."] If the hon. Baronet suggested that the park labourers employed by the London County Council were overpaid, of course that raised another question. He went into the matter very carefully with the Treasury at the time. He discussed the whole bearings of the question, and its relation to the question of the wages paid to the men at the Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh. The hon. Baronet had suggested that the gangers in London were receiving 48s. or 49s. a week.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid he asked if a ganger was a foreman and received no reply.
    *MRHARCOURTthought the hon. Baronet was taking his information from his neighbour. There were fifty foremen in London, one class of whom received 43s. a week. The second class of foremen received from 30s. to 35s. a week. Gangers had not had their maximum wage increased.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid there was not a ganger mentioned in the whole Vote. That was an invention of the Supplementary Vote.
    *MR HARCOURTsaid gangers were a class perfectly well known. The labourers, numbering 294, had had their wages increased 3s. a week, and that really accounted for the bulk of the whole Vote. The increase was only for nine months and amounted to £2,293. The increase for the full twelve months would be £3,006. Nearly the whole of it was being paid to labourers in London and the country. Another class of men whom he forbore to describe had received an increase of 1s. a week. In answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Blackpool, he had to state that pensions were not taken into consideration in fixing the wages of the park keepers. The park-keepers were paid what were regarded as fair wages without considering their pensions.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINwas understood to ask whether the bearing
    1066
    these increases would nave on the demands that might be made by men at Deptford and Woolwich had been considered.
    *MR HARCOURTsaid he was afraid he could not answer the right hon. Gentleman. That had really nothing to do with the Office of Works. He was at the present moment considering, with a view to their increase, the wages of the men in the Royal Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he might be permitted to explain why he asked the question. Towards the close of their term of office the Government of 1892–5 increased the wages of the park labourers to 24s. a week. The succeeding Government were at once faced with demands for an increase of wages to post office servants, and to the employees of the Deptford and Woolwich establishments. That was a matter germane to an increase of this kind, and he wished to know whether the Treasury had considered it. In the case to which he referred the Treasury had not considered it when the increase was granted.
    *MR. HARCOURTsaid the matter was considered by the Treasury in March last year.
    MR. MORTONexpressed approval of what the right hon. Gentleman had done in raising the wages.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. Speaking for himself he had no hesitation in saying that the London County Council was an extremely bad example to take. They were not influenced by the current rate of wages, but by what would please the people who were going to receive the wages. He sincerely hoped that other Members of the Government would not regulate their proceedings by what was done by the County Council; if they did he would be sorry for the taxpayers.
    MR. COURTHOPEthanked the right hon. Gentleman for the information he

    1067
    had given and asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Motiod, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £11,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907, for Houses of Parliament Buildings."
    MR. ASHLEYmoved to reduce the vote by £100. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the cleaning and painting which had been going on in what was called the secretaries' room. But he did not think that any amount of painting and repairing would make it a room really fit for the purpose to which it was devoted. He believed there were about a hundred secretaries who had the use of the room. Everybody who had been in it would, he thought, agree that only seven or eight secretaries could use the room at the same time. It was perfectly ridiculous that a House in which there were 670 Members should have only such a room for private secretaries. The difficulties with which the right hon. Gentleman had to contend were no doubt to be taken into account, but he had worked wonders since he came into office, and possibly he might be able to do something in regard to the matter referred to. Perhaps it would be possible to get some extra accommodation for the private secretaries in the portion of the buildings allocated at present to the House of Lords.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £11,800 be granted for the said service."—(MR. Ashley.)
    MR. DILLONsaid he was sure he expressed the feeling of every hon. Member that they owed a deep debt of gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for the alteration he had made in the method of taking divisions. He had heard this matter discussed in the House for the past twenty years, and Members
    1068
    had entirely despaired of any improvement being made. But he must say that the wear and tear on hon. Members when divisions were being taken, especially in the summer-time, had been enormously reduced by the labours and the device of the right hon. Gentleman. The system, having now been under trial for a whole session, had proved to be a great success. But there was the old-standing grievance of the ventilation of the House. He desired, too, to recognise the interest and trouble the right hon. Gentleman had taken in that question and his endeavours to meet every complaint made by hon. Members. There was a substantial additional estimate for the improvement of the ventilation. He admitted that there had been a considerable improvement in the ventilation of the Chamber and of other parts of the House; but he still urged on the right hon. Gentleman that the condition of affairs in that respect was not yet satisfactory. The system was, in his opinion, radically bad, but he did not know whether his experts had given the right hon. Gentleman any hope that they could further improve the method of admitting the air into the House. The supply or air, no doubt, had been enormously improved and that was a great gain; but the condition of things was still quite unprecedented when compared with any other great public building in the world. The experts told the Committee of which he was a Member some years ago that the method of ventilation was quite unique inasmuch as it sent through openings at their feet and back all the air which hon. Members breathed, and it had been found that the space under the seats had never been brushed or cleaned for many years. The air blew up sometimes with great violence on the feet and necks of hon. Members who were compelled to sit in the House for a long time, and it seemed impossible for the gentlemen in charge of the ventilation below to keep the air at a uniform temperature. The result was that the temperature was allowed to fall several degrees, until hon. Members' feet became cold as lead, and hon. Members had to go into the division lobbies to warm themselves at the fires there.
    *MR HARCOURTsaid that the hon. Member for Blackpool had drawn attention to the insufficiency of the accommodation in the secretaries' room. He admitted that it was miserably inadequate when the amount of work which hon. Members had to transact with their secretaries during long hours was considered. But the difficulty of finding additional accommodation in an already overcrowded Gothic building which had an important street on one side and a still more important river on the other was a problem he had not yet been able to solve. He understood that the authorities of the House permitted correspondence to be carried on in the large Committee room at the north-west angle of Westminster Hall, although he quite recognised the inconvenience of the distance of that room from the House. Beyond that he could not see that any more accommodation could be provided, although he would not lose sight of the matter. The hon. Member for Blackpool had suggested that some further accommodation might be got from the House of Lords; but he was afraid that they would get no more accommodation from that House whilst occupied by its present tenants. He was extremely obliged to the hon. Member for East Mayo for his observation as to improvements which had been introduced. As to the method of ventilation to which the hon. Member referred and the draughts which came on to hon. Members' feet, he might remark that some people tolerated without very much inconvenience a current of air which to others was impossible. He, however, could hold out no hope of changing radically the scheme of ventilation of the House, but he would do what he could to mitigate the blowing of the air on the feet of hon. Members who would have rather less air than they should have under hygenic rules, and more comfort. There was a report by Dr. Gordon, which was supported by the late Sir Michael Foster, whose loss they all deplored, in which fourteen recommendations were made as to improvements in the ventilation of the House; and he was happy to say that he had carried out the whole of them except two during the late autumn recess. He did not think that the hon. Member for East Mayo alleged that the air now coming in was
    1070
    unwholesome. The House, lobbies, and other rooms were now cleaned daily by the vacuum cleaner, and were, in addition, thoroughly gone over at the week end. The hon. Member had complained of the sudden falls of temperature in the House; but it was extraordinary how the engineers were able to maintain an almost even temperature. There was one disastrous day last session when the temperature of the House suddenly rose. What happened was this. The temperature outside suddenly rose four degrees when all the hot water in the pipes in the House was on, and it took some time to cool the pipes. At the same time there was a fall of rain outside; therefore the humidity of the air was increased and the sensation of heat was more felt. As to the general question of ventilation, he would, during the cold weather, watch what he could do to improve the supply of air.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDwished on behalf of himself and other Members of the House, whether they were present or not, to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he looked after their comfort and convenience. He felt it his duty, however, to call attention to the large amount of this Vote, the total being £63,700. The sum represented a most appalling increase of expenditure upon Houses of Parliament Buildings during recent years. In 1898 the amount of the Vote for the whole of the premises was £34,000; in 1899 it was £33,000; in 1900 it was £35,000, and there were small increases in the next two or three years; but now they found that with the £11,900 they were now asked to grant it would total up to the figure he had mentioned, £63,700, which was about twice the average expenditure of five years ago. To his mind that was a most astounding increase, and he thought it justified hon. Members in criticising the items and asking for an explanation. They were asked, for instance, to pay an additional £590 for continuing the improvement of the ventilation arrangements of the House of Commons Chamber. He thought any hon. Member would agree that that sum was not excessive if it was spread over the whole year, but he found that in the original Vote there was a sum of £2,000 for the same purpose, so that on that object alone

    1071
    they would spend over £2,500. Many of them were inclined to credit the right hon. Gentleman with the best intentions, but the sum spent seemed to be excessive. Again, they were asked to vote £100 for continuing the improvements to the smoke shafts, in spite of the fact that the original estimate of £500 for that purpose had been spent. Why a total of £600 should be spent for this purpose had not, he thought, been made clear by the right hon. Gentleman. He would also call attention to the position which had arisen in regard to the Members' tea and reading rooms, for continuing the improvement of the ventilation of which another £100 was being asked for. No doubt that was a small increase, but it must be borne in mind that the amount they had already parsed was £250, therefore the total worked out at £350. If expenditure of this sort was to go on, it became obvious that their accommodation would reach such an acme of perfection that not even the right hon. Gentleman would be able to improve upon it. As to the improvements in the division lobbies, £250 seemed to be a large sum to spend upon the alteration of a few doors, and the placing of hinges in a different position. He observed, moreover, that £360 was spent or was to be spent on the ventilation of the division lobbies, but although he was grateful for the changes which had been made, he could not understand why that sum should be charged unless some payment for a valuable patent was included in the charges. They were asked to vote £7,000 for improvements in the dining room, and in order to facilitate the despatch of business. They were exceedingly grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for discovering the false ceilings put in for the purpose of architectural uniformity in the rooms downstairs, and which were removed in order to give better ventilation and render the rooms less stuffy, but how £7,000 could be spent for the purposes stated he could not understand. Dealing with Item B. The found that for warming, ventilation and lighting, apart from external and internal repairs, the House paid £8,300, which was £300 more than the year before, and they now had to vote another £500. Why should they pay £800 more than they did
    1072
    last year for this purpose? It was an increase of 10 per cent., and was quite apart from the other expenditure upon the House of nearly £30,000 a year. The amount seemed to him to be monstrous, the actual figure being £28,800, in addition to the sum for warming, lighting and ventilating, and quite apart from the cost of the increased accommodation which the right hon. Gentleman was giving. He wished to know if anything could be done to meet the two great complaints of private Members. The first was that there was no place except the smoking room or a draughty corridor in which visitors or constituents could be received. That was a monstrous position of things. The second grievance was that there was no proper place and no facilities afforded for Members to conduct their correspondence. There was not a Member of this House who, day by day, had not to deal with a vast amount of correspondence, and in other legislative assemblies rooms with typewriters were set apart for this purpose. It was a great inconvenience that while Members had to be in attendance so many hours of the day and night they had not conveniences for replying to their numerous correspondents. Members were paid nothing and got nothing, for themselves out of their work, but there might, he submitted, be some room set apart in which they could deal with business having reference to the affairs of the people with which they were bound to deal. In conclusion, he ventured to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that during the next twelve months, unless he was in the meantime lifted, into a more responsible position, which they were all certain he deserved, he would give some attention to this question which touched very nearly the comfort of many Members of the House.
    MR. MORTONsaid he was astonished to hear from hon. Members opposite that the total amount of this Vote had doubled during last year. He would have thought that instead of £63,000 £30,000 ought to have been quite enough for the upkeep of the Parliamentary buildings. He objected to the Supplementary Vote altogether. He wanted the money spent elsewhere. He might be out of order in saying where

    1073
    the elsewhere was, but if any hon. Gentleman opposite suggested Sutherland they might not be far wrong. He objected to the Government spending this money extravagantly when it was wanted to carry out in other parts of the country useful and necessary works to which the Prime Minister was pledged. He also thought it was a great farce to discuss the expenditure of money when he dared say it had been spent long ago. It was not fair to the intelligence of the Committee to ask them to consider the expenditure of money which had already gone. This question of ventilation had been discussed for years—ever since this House was built—but his own opinion was that the ventilation would never be perfect owing to the situation of the House. The air intake was very near the river, and hon. Members knew perfectly well when barges containing curious cargoes passed what a difference they made to the atmosphere of the House. The money down on the Vote before the Committee for ventilation would be wasted, as many hundreds and thousands of pounds had been wasted before. The right hon. Gentleman had certainly greatly improved the process of taking divisions, but £250, if that had been spent on the alterations made for that purpose, was to his mind an extraordinary sum for such a little work. Then he did not understand the sum of £360 for ventilating the lobbies nor the £210 for providing annunciators in the dining-rooms. They were not required, and he objected to the item altogether. He supposed lockers must be provided for Members, still he thought £380 was a large sum to devote to the purpose. The next item, £7,000, required in his opinion considerable explanation—"Works and alterations to facilitate the despatch of business. "Business was proceeded with very slowly last year, and they certainly did not want to provide more money for it. He noticed that the item contained provision for more accommodation, including a new dining-room. But whatever it included it required considerable explanation. There were a number of other items which he did not intend to go into at any length, and then they came to "£250—extension of the vacuum system of cleansing." The only
    1074
    reason for adopting that system was, in his opinion, to save money, but in this case the cleansing cost £250 more than otherwise it would have done, or had done before. One reduction had been moved and therefore he would not move another, but he would like to do away with this extravagant and extraordinary expenditure altogether. He wished the Government to understand that if the Liberal Government and the Liberal Party were to carry out their pledges to the people of the country and make the improvements they wanted to make they must have money, and if the money was squandered in the way illustrated by these Votes, they could not carry out their promises, in which case he would be exceedingly disappointed.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHasked the right hon. Gentleman to refer to the principle which underlay many of these Votes. He pointed out that in the last Parliament the then Government were continually being told of the evil of Supplementary Estimates and of commencing new works under Supplementary Estimates prior to their having been discussed by the Committee. It was not easy from these Estimates, especially when compared with the original Estimates of last year, to pick out what had been done in the way of simply carrying out the works promised and sanctioned by the House and new works. There were five new sub-heads. In the old Estimates there were eleven subheads of new works, whilst on these Estimates there were sixteen different sections. Some of those new sections might be in respect to work referred to in the previous sections, but he desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could tell the Committee how much of these works had received Parliamentary sanction. He would also like to know how much work would be definitely finished with the sums now asked for, and how many of these items were in the nature of what was called continuous expenditure. Of course, it was perfectly easy now to criticise the proposals on which, he presumed, a large portion of the money had already been spent; but it was

    1075
    like shutting the door after the horse was stolen. Still, when once the expenditure had been begun, it might mean that they were involved in a future very considerable expenditure, which, possibly, might have been rather lightly entered upon by simply giving approval of the Supplementary Estimates. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to assure them that this expenditure was not likely to involve a considerable future expenditure, and at all events that it would not involve an expenditure in the form of Supplementary Estimates, but in a form in which it would receive the sanction of the House before the work was done.
    Colonel LOCKWOODsaid that, as regarded the ventilation of the House, he honestly thought that what had been done represented almost all that could be done. The only chance which the right hon. Gentleman had in dealing with the matter was to obtain the best advice possible and act on that advice. He was not going to oppose the right hon. Gentleman's obtaining this money, and he would assist him in getting it. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had treated them exceedingly well, and had provided for the comfort of Members. He had the Reports of various Committees as to improvements of the House. There was one inquiry in 1894, under the right hon. Gentleman who now occupied the position of Home Secretary, and there was another Committee on which he himself served in 1901. They made a recommendation, in which he joined, that £30,000 should be spent on the buildings. Some of these recommendations had been carried out; some had not. It was impossible to make this old Gothic building suitable to the requirements of a number of Gentlemen who sat there morning, noon and night, and practically lived there. The building as originally planned was to be extended to the catalpa trees, but the time had not arrived for providing for Members by completing the original plans which he believed were in existence. They had knocked down walls and so altered the interior of the House that a Member of fifty years ago would really not know the place if he came into it now. He was
    1076
    very much inclined to think that they had gone as far as possible in that direction; but still, it was very necessary that there should be provision of new library accommodation, which at present was most deficient. So greatly had the number of volumes increased that many were stowed away in almost inaccessible places. Other very much needed accommodation was a room where Members could meet deputations of their constituents. The other day he received a deputation of woman suffragists, introduced, as the President of the Local Government Board would say, by a buxom lady. He had to drag them about from pillar to post before he could obtain a room in which to receive them. A room for the reception of deputations by Members was absolutely necessary, and it should be as close as possible to the main portion of the building. All these alterations, he was perfectly aware, would cost money, and he was ready to vote the money. He was aware, from the scientific point of view, there was a good deal to be said for and against them. They had already got a quart into the pint pot, and it was impossible to get another quart into it. Nothing could be more villainous than the accommodation for the telegraph messengers, and the police accommodation was bad. The only chance they had of dealing with this matter was to set apart on the Estimates a sum which would meet the requirements of Members and carry out the original plans by an extension of the building big enough to hold those Members.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid this was not the right occasion on which to make all kinds of suggestions. They were discussing the Supplementary Estimates, and he had allowed latitude of debate for the simple reason that they were very voluminous, introducing a great many subjects; but the present was not the right occasion for making all kinds of suggestions.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND(said he desired to ask a question on a point of order. They were confronted with large items of new expenditure, and he wished to know whether they were not entitled, in discussing those

    1077
    items, to express their views as to alternative schemes, and whether the money might be spent in other ways; if they were not, what opportunity had they of discussing those matters?
    *The CHAIRMANsaid the general discussion would come on the Estimates next year. The hon. Member was entitled to observe that this money ought not to be spent on these items and had better have been spent on others, but he was not entitled to go into every kind of scheme in relation to these buildings. The opportunity for that would come on the Estimates for next year and not on the Supplementary Estimates.
    MR. LAURENCE HARDYasked the Minister in charge of the Vote whether his attention had been called to the words in the Estimate, "to facilitate the despatch of business." If the Vote was for that purpose, was it not necessary for them to go into matters which related to the difficulties affecting the despatch of business in this House.
    *The CHAIRMANsaid he had already decided about that. There was a well-known ruling on the point.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he was really seeking to ascertain the proper time for the discussion, because when the proper time came he was going to suggest that the proper solution of this question was to deal formally with the House of Lords. On the items for maintenance and repairs, external and internal repairs, and for miscellaneous charges, surely it was open to hon. Members to discuss them at large, making suggestion.
    *The CHAIRMANsaid the general policy of the original Vote was not open to discussion on the Supplementary Estimates. That was the general rule. He had allowed a good deal of latitude on this occasion because, as he had said, the Supplementary Estimates were very voluminous and dealt in a great many things.
    *MR. HARCOURTsaid he was very much inclined to agree with the warning
    1078
    or statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Derbyshire as to these Supplementary Estimates. Practically the whole of the matters which had been discussed had been demanded by the House at large, and he had carried them out during the period of the year which was most convenient. If he had taken no steps at all to carry out what hon. Members asked him last year to do, and had put the items on the Estimates of this year, for discussion, the whole of the session would have expired before he could have carried out the works in the next autumn recess. It would have been a long delay, and longer, he thought, than the House would have desired. Of course, the Estimates last year were practically in shape when he took office. There were arrears to make up in improving the accommodation for the convenience of Members, and those arrears he had been endeavouring to catch up. But he would observe a more regular course next year, and he hoped not to have any Supplementary Estimates; but when he was asked for things which they wished to be carried out, he was going to say that he would put them in his Estimates, but his Estimates for 1907–8 had already been sent in. It would therefore be at least twelve or eighteen months before any new suggestion could be embodied and carried out. If the House imposed this restriction, and he thought it ought to be imposed, it would be their own restriction and would cause delay in future. A building put where an hon. Member had suggested would be of very little use. They wanted accommodation for deputations within easy distance of the lobby. Considering the great demands made, he did not think the expenditure had been at all excessive. The new Parliament seemed very much in the mood described by Lord Elcho of being not only just to others but generous to themselves. A large number of new Members had been returned and they had not learned to put up with the inconveniences which Members of former Parliaments had to submit to. A great deal of the expenditure in this Vote had been involved by the recommendation of expert Committees appointed by the House. When those Committees reported it was impossible for the First Commissioner of

    1079
    Works to throw aside their recommendations and declare that the work should not be done. There was nothing more expensive than ventilating and heating works in an old building. Electric fans and expensive motors had also been put in to lessen the smoke nuisance. The additional expense on the tea room was due to the installation of a larger fan and motor which were found to be necessary to produce the ventilation required. Some hon. Members were rather shocked at the charge for improving the arrangements for taking divisions. They had to provide six new desks for the clerks, and amongst other things the alterations involved cutting through a steel floor. It was very difficult to get the job done during the Whitsuntide recess and a good deal of overtime had to be worked. The improved ventilation in the division lobbies had been a great success, and hon. Members who remembered what the condition of the division lobbies used to be in the summer months would appreciate the change. The works which had been carried out during the recess had been treated as one job, and they had cost about £7,000. Out of that sum £3,000 was for the new dining-room. That sounded a great deal of money, but he only wished hon. Members could have seen the work when it was going on. The workmen had to cut out the whole of the vaulting and put in steel girders and two pillars. The cost of work of that kind was stupendous, because it had to be done at high pressure. He hoped to be able to offer the new dining-room for the use of hon. Members in about three weeks time. An additional £500 had been spent upon the necessary linen, cutlery, glass and plate for the new dining-room. That accounted for half of the £7,000. Besides this there were improvements in connection with the smoking-room, the dining-room, additional accommodation for the staff of the Sergeant-at-Arms, increased larder accommodation and other necessary alterations.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid he considered the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman as to the largeness of the Supplementary Estimate quite satisfactory. He did not see how
    1080
    the right hon. Gentleman could have done otherwise in this case, but personally he was not in favour of these large expenditures which were not in the original Votes. He had spoken to the right hon. Gentleman during last summer on the question of the ventilation of the House. He admitted that it was a most difficult thing to deal with the ventilation of such a Chamber in such a way as to satisfy everybody. A large sum of money was spent on the ventilation of the House, but he thought that the arrangements could be improved. In his case his feet were very cold and his head was generally very hot. He thought the reverse ought to be his experience if the House were properly ventilated. Originally in the summer the windows at the top were opened, but under the new régime he was sorry to say that they were never opened. Last year he called on the right hon. Gentleman and pointed out the difficulty which had arisen. The right hon. Gentleman received him with extreme courtesy and asked him not to raise the question of the opening of the windows, because it was part of his scheme that they should not be opened. Accordingly he did not raise the question last year, but he thought he was now entitled to raise it. Formerly this Chamber was one of the coolest places in London in summer, but now it was always stuffy and there was a horrible smell in it. He did not know what the scientific reason was, but the fact remained that the House was not anything like so comfortable as when the simple expedient of opening the windows to get fresh air was resorted to. He had had some experience in ventilation, and he had generally found that the expert had a beautiful scheme which cost a great deal of money, but in the majority of cases if they contented themselves with an open fireplace and an open window the ventilation was very much better than if they adopted the plans of the expert. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should try, especially in the hot weather, to go back to the old system of opening the windows and not giving them so much cold air from underneath. He thought the majority of the Members would like it. The new system of taking divisions had

    1081
    to him one drawback. The door behind the Chair was always open, and owing to that, when he returned to the House after a division, he was nearly blown out of his place. He thought the door might be shut, if not locked. He spoke not only for himself, but for a good many of the officials who had called his attention to this matter. He preferred the old method of taking divisions to that which was now followed. Formerly it was possible to converse privately with one's friends in the lobby, but now they were all mixed up, and the opportunity for conversation as to the course they would pursue after a division was almost done away with. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would do something to remedy the inconvenience caused by the door being left open. There seemed to him to be no reason why expense should be incurred in providing additional lockers. He had not had an opportunity of looking at the new dining-room, and he did not know whether £3,500 was an excessive sum or not. It seemed a very large amount for one dining-room. They ought to set an example to other people and not spend money on their own personal comforts. There was no special necessity for Members to entertain ladies downstairs. He agreed with the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire that they ought to be in their places in this House instead of dining with their friends. He would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had tenders for the alterations, and whether the lowest offer was accepted. There was an item of £1,150 for the supply of electric current. He presumed that this additional sum was necessitated by the autumn session, but there was nothing in the Estimate to show.
    MR. SEDDONthought the House might take it that the First Commissioner of Works had been assiduous in watching that the expense was kept down to well-defined and reasonable limits. On returning to the House after the recess he noticed that an alteration had been made on the notice board with respect to the lift used by Members. He noticed that the hour had been changed from five to six o'clock. That was a very desirable change from the point of view of aged
    1082
    Members to obviate their having to climb upstairs; but what he wanted to know was whether the attendant whose hours of work would be obviously increased had had his wages raised for the increased time he had to work, which would be five hours per week, or a reasonable half-day. Many of the attendants in the House were compelled to work over-time without extra pay. He himself objected to overtime on any account; but when it was necessary the attendants should receive extra remuneration. That also applied to the policemen, who were most attentive to their duty and assisted hon. Members to the utmost of their power.
    THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This Vote relates to the works in the House, and the messengers to which the hon. Member refers are in a class altogether different.
    MR. SEDDONsaid he thought the item under discussion came under "Miscellaneous Charges." However, knowing full well the generosity of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works he believed that the case of the lift attendants and the police would be remembered, and that they would receive pay for the extra work they had done.
    *MR. MEYSEY-THOMPSONsaid that he had been very much alarmed when he saw a sum on the Supplementary Estimates of £8,900 for alterations in and additions to the House, and he wondered what additional buildings were contemplated. He did hope that, and he wished to make an earnest appeal to the First Commissioner of Works, in making any such addition to the Houses of Lords and Commons to adhere to the original plan of the buildings, as a new dining-room with a red roof, or a similar addition, would be, in his opinion, somewhat out of harmony with the existing style of architecture. However, since the right hon. Gentleman has given his explanation that alarm had been lessened. Had he spoken earlier in the debate he would have had more to say on the subject, but since the very clear and lucid explanation of the hon. Gentleman he felt that the House might rest assured that, after all,

    1083
    nothing of a very startling character was intended. But he was not quite clear whether the alterations included that made on the space at the right of the Speaker's chair. If so he wished to lodge an objection both to the alteration and the expenditure upon it. Then as regarded the new dining-room he wanted to know whether it was within the competence of the House of Commons to spend money on the new dining-room, the use of which had been conceded to them by the House of Lords, but which, he supposed, still belonged to the House of Lords. On the subject of ventilation he admitted that in many respects the ventilation had been improved; but the whole system of introducing air through the mats on the floor on which all day long hon. Members were walking with dirty boots was bad. He agreed that the Chamber was now properly cleaned every morning, but hon. Members were constantly coming in with every sort of vile mud on their boots and this mud soon dried on the mats, and by the present system of ventilation was then speedily wafted to the nostrils of hon. Members, and for the rest of the evening hon. Members were exposed to breathing fine dust of the worst possible description. He complained that draughts came up through the floor causing the feet of hon. Members to become cold and their heads hot, sometimes with disastrous results, and judging from the speeches lately made by some hon. Members they must have suffered from intensely cold feet. What was wanted was more fresh air. He was told by all the greatest authorities that nowadays the elaborate and costly systems of ventilation in hospitals had been abolished and that the ventilation and warming of the wards was now accomplished by means of open fire-places and open windows to admit the fresh air. He asked if the right hon. Gentleman would not turn his attention to a system of ventilation by which they could get in the Chamber more fresh air.
    MR. J. A. BRIGHTthought that the ventilation of the lobbies had been very distinctly improved, but that of the Chamber itself was very much worse. He came into the Chamber on Monday night at ten o'clock from the fresh air outside, and found that the atmosphere in the House positively smelt. He
    1084
    insisted that if the windows were kept open it would be a great improvement.
    *MR REES (asked the First Commissioner of Works whether something could not be done to improve the lighting of the Chamber. There seemed to be some quality about the light overhead which was peculiarly trying to the eyes and compelled hon. Members to drop their hats over their eyes and gave them the alternative of wearing their hats and losing their hair, or doffing their hats and losing their eyesight. This dilemma was greater now that they were deprived of the dark corner behind the Speaker's chair. He had no intention of complaining of his right hon. friend the First Commissioner of Works. Indeed signs of his beneficent activities were apparent everywhere, so that there might in future be a statue erected to him in the lobby with the inscription on the pedestal "nobis haec otia fecit." Was it not possible that by means of a high voltage current electric light could be put overhead and so screened as not to beat down on hon. Members below? He believed the First Commissioner could arrange this or anything else, for it was understood he could make the atmosphere in the Chamber cool for the Government, and hot for the Opposition, or could produce a temperature of sixty degrees all round, which was admittedly best for men, women and claret. Perhaps then he could arrange for the supply of a kindly light.
    MR. J. WARDsaid he had been much struck by the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hands-worth that it was not within the competence of the House of Commons to spend money on one of the rooms appropriated to the House of Lords. He understood that the whole building at Westminster was necessary to carry on the business of the nation, and if it was found that there was scarcely sufficient accommodation for Members of the House of Commons in the rooms allotted to them they might surely consider the suggestion that there were plenty of vacant rooms in another direction which might be secured. The heading of this Supplementary Estimate was "Houses of Parliament Buildings," and he took

    1085
    it that that included the House of Lords as well as the House of Commons. He thought it would be advisable on future occasions, for the purpose of giving hon. Members an opportunity of expressing their opinion as to the necessity of keeping up the other end of the building, to put down separate estimates for alterations on the House of Commons and on the House of Lords.
    *The CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The question of the form of the Estimate does not arise on this Vote.
    MR. J. WARDsaid he would obey the ruling of the Chair and proceed to discuss the question of the accommodation for Members in the Chamber itself. He thought it would be desirable to remove the Bar altogether, or at any rate to move it further back, so that Members should be entitled to speak from the whole of the House and to use all the seating accommodation which it contained. As it was now the space below the Bar was declared to be outside the precincts of the House, and he thought that this subject might very well be considered by the First Commission or of Works when dealing with the arrangements for the accommodation of Members. One other point he wished to call attention to was the fact that Members had to tramp up and down stairs unnecessarily. From the Estimates it appeared that there was to be a lift for the use of the House of Lords, but Members of this House, unless they went some distance out of their way, had no means of getting up to the different rooms except by walking. There was an immense stair well-hole which might be made use of for the purposes of a lift.
    *The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman cannot have been present when I ruled that this was not the occasion for making suggestions of this kind, but that they should come upon next year's Estimates.
    MR. J. WARDthanked the Chairman, and said he was grateful to him for having allowed him to make the suggestion before he called him to order.
    MR. COURTHOPEsaid he wished to associate himself with what had been said in regard to the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman to add to their comfort. But in regard to the new dining-room, although he agreed that it was a very fine room indeed, he could not help noticing certain alterations. For instance, he noticed that there were three windows and in regard to the centre one it looked as if a door had been made and then filled up and a window put in its place. He made inquiries and was told by the workmen that his surmise was correct, and that a door had been made and then filled up and a window put in its place. One of the workmen said he believed there had been no end of a row about it. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would explain why the wall was pulled down, a door made and the place filled up again. With regard to operations of this kind they ought to inquire into the expenses incurred. He understood the position was that the alteration was thought to infringe upon the premises of the House of Lords and that therefore the restoration of the original state of things became necessary. Possibly the policy of the House of Lords might have been to anticipate any action which might be taken by this House, and he could only assume that it was thought the House of Lords would be abolished so soon that their consent would not be necessary. He had one other point to make in the interests of those who would be using this new dining-room. He hoped the First Commissioner would take steps to have a new swing-door in the lobby opening upon the corridor, which was very draughty at present. There was only one other matter he might mention, and he hoped that it was one which had been brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, who had no doubt carried out a number of improvements with regard to the lavatory accommodation. He admitted there had been great, improvements, but he regretted that he had omitted to see that there was a good supply of cold water for the Members' large lavatory. As things stood at present, one's hands got boiled by the hot water and it was impossible to get cold water.
    *MR HARCOURTsaid it was the fact that some new stonework was to be seen in a wall blocking up a door which had been cut through into the terrace, and the door, which was in the jurisdiction of the Lords, was cut by his orders, the plans having been approved by a Committee of the House of Lords. Perhaps the House of Lords, not being accustomed to read plans, did not realise the difference between a door and a window. When the deed was done some of the highest authorities of the other House thought their geographical position was being endangered, and he received a peremptory order to fill up the door again. He temporised and asked permission, which he undoubtedly ought to have done before. He was exceedingly humble, but ultimately the assent to open the door was finally refused. There seemed to be a feeling of fear among the Lords lest the Members of this House should get "between the wind and their nobility. "He had lost his door, but had got his grievance still. He could not imagine anything more terribly unconstitutional than the suggestion of the hon. Member for Stoke that the Bar should be removed. That was a matter which could only be touched by the Speaker with the full authority of the House, and in view of his recent experience he had no wish to take up the subject. As to the request for a further lift, there were two lifts to the committee-rooms already. Hon. Members could not have it both ways—they could not press him both for luxury and economy. If there was a predominant opinion in favour of luxury he would be inclined to lean to that side. The new dining-room now belonged to the House of Commons, and so did the new committee-room, the Peers 'door having been shut up so securely that no Peer could gain entrance. With regard to the lighting of the Chamber, they were obliged to have gas to get heat to extract the air. He thought it was the great quantity of light beating down on them which gave a sense of; discomfort, and which, no doubt, induced many Members to maintain the old and much-respected habit of wearing their hats in the House. It should be remembered, in connection with the question which had been raised of opening the windows, that the problem of ventilation in that Chamber was very
    1088
    different from that presented in an ordinary room; by opening the windows, which were high up, little fresh air came down to the Members, it was carried straight up to the roof. Fresh air had to come up through the floor, and to get it out there were enormous exhaust fans. If they opened the windows the suction would never reach the floor at all, but would take away all the air which came from the windows, and hon. Members would practically sit in an airless well. With regard to the draught which came into the House from behind MR. Speaker's Chair, it was essential that the door behind the Chair should remain open during the time a division was taking place, but he had already ordered a swing-door to be put up in the archway of the Ministers' staircase through which the draught came, and when that door was in its place he thought the hon. Baronet would have no further cause to complain. An hon. Member had complained of the lockers. They had always been seventy lockers short, and for forty years the answer to complaints had been that there was no room to put up any more. He had found that room and had disposed for ever of one of the great grievances of hon. Members. As to the cost of the new dining-room, he would remind the House that they had to do the work when and how they could, much of it while the House was sitting, and from that cause the expense had been much greater than it would have been had they been able to do it in a long recess. The item for the vacuum cleansing was not for the actual work of cleansing. The House possessed its own pipes for that purpose and the sum stated was for a large extension of the system in order that they might be able to deal with a great many more rooms which were now swept out by the cleaners.
    MR. HICKS BEACHon the question of ventilation pointed out that the period of the day when the House was most hot and stuffy was when it first sat, and Members were crowding in to question and hear the Answers of Ministers. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible at that time considerably to reduce the temperature of the House.
    MR. WEIRsaid he desired to take this opportunity of thanking the right hon. Gentleman for redressing several very real grievances. In the case of the Vote Office in particular, where one man had been killed by the bad air and another was pining away, he (MR. Weir) had only to mention the matter to the right hon. Gentleman, and it wasat once put right. He pro-
    tested against the action of hon. Gentlemen in criticising the cost of the new dining-room which was a very great acquisition.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 57; Noes, 264. (Division List No. 8.)

    AYES.

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

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

    Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Forster, Henry William

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Gordon, Sir W. Evans-(T'rHam

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Cave, George

    Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.

    Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

    Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

    Dixon, Sir Daniel

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Frederick Banbury and Mr.

    Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

    Moore, William

    Ashley.

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Fell, Arthur

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Delany, William

    Agnew, George William

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Alden, Percy

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Dillon, John

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Dolan, Charles Joseph

    Astbury, John Meir

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Duffy, William J.

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Cameron, Robert

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury. E.)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Elibank, Master of

    Barker, John

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Essex, R. W.

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Clarke, C. Goddard

    Faber, G. H. (Boston)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Clough, William

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

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

    Fenwick, Charles

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Ferens, T. R.

    Bell, Richard

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Bellairs, Carlyon

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

    Ffrench, Peter

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

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Bennett, E. N.

    Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

    Cory, Clifford John

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Cowan, W. H.

    Gill, A. H.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Cox, Harold

    Ginnell, L.

    Brace, William

    Cremer, William Randal

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    Branch, James

    Crombie, John William

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Brigg, John

    Crossley, William J.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Brodie, H. C.

    Cullinan, J.

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Brooke, Stopford

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

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

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J.T (Cheshire

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Gulland, John W.

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Rose, Charles Day

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Rowlands, J.

    Hall, Frederick

    Meagher, Michael

    Runciman, Walter

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

    Meehan, Patrick A.

    Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Mond, A.

    Sears, J. E.

    Harvey, W. E.(Derbyshire, NE

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Montgomery, H. G.

    Seddon, J.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Mooney, J. J.

    Seely, Major J. B.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Shackleton, David James

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

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

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

    Morrell, Philip

    Sheehy, David

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Murphy, John

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Higham, John Sharp

    Murray, James

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Myer, Horatio

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Hodge, John

    Napier, T. B.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

    Hogan, Michael

    Nolan, Joseph

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Hooper, A. G.

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Norton, Capt Cecil William

    Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

    Hudson, Walter

    Nuttall, Harry

    Steadman, W. C.

    Hyde, Clarendon

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Idris, T. H. W.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Stuart, James (Sunderland)

    Jackson, R. S.

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Sullivan, Donal

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Summerbell, T.

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

    Jowett, F. W.

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Dowd, John

    Tomkinson, James

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    O'Malley, William

    Toulmin, George

    Kelley, George D.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Parker, James (Halifax)

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

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Partington, Oswald

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

    Paul, Herbert

    Ward, W. Dudley (South'mpt'n

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominst'r

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

    Wardle, George J.

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Philipps,Col.Ivor (S'thampton

    Waring, Walter

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

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

    Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

    Pollard, Dr.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Levy, Maurice

    Pullar, Sir Robert

    Watt, H. Anderson

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Radford, G. H.

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Lough, Thomas

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Weir, James Galloway

    Lundon, W.

    Reddy, M.

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford

    White, Luke (York, E.R.)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Rees, J. D.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk, B'ghs

    Renton, Major Leslie

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

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

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Wilkie, Alexander

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Williamson, A.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

    Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

    Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh. N.)

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd

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

    M'Callum, John M.

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    M'Crae, George

    Robinson, S.

    Yoxall, James Henry

    M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    CLASS II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £1,550, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Offices of the House of Commons.
    *MR. MORTONsaid this was another of those Votes to which an addition was made. The original Vote was for £32,900, which ought to have been enough. The Vote was really £3,180, £1,630 being deducted for fees received. He would like some information about the extra expenses in the Sergeant-at-Arm's Office and in other offices; and also with regard to the extra expenses of witnesses and shorthand writers. He was aware that they had a new Minister, and he

    1093
    hoped that meant that they would have some reforms in the shape of a reduction of witnesses' expenses and other matters in connection with this and similar Votes. He was not going to move a reduction, because £100 would be of no good in this case, and he would like to strike the Vote out altogether as unnecessary and extravagant.
    MR. STUART WORTLEYwas understood to say that on all Supplementary Estimates the primary consideration was whether they ought to have them at all. In regard to this particular Supplementary Estimate, it was the imprudence of the Government, and the autumn session out of which it arose, that made it necessary. It all arose from the fact that last year the Government came before Parliament in the spring at much too late a date. Any ordinary Parliamentarian must have seen that the Government's long programme of legislation would lead to an autumn session, and therefore it ought to have been provided for in the original Estimates. A great deal of the legislative work which the House had been invited to undertake consisted of Bills originally brought forward by private Members, and then taken up by the Government. If His Majesty's Government did not foresee, while the original Estimates were still before the House, that they would take up those Bills, it must have been because they were not conscious of their own innate infirmity of purpose, of which they ought to have been conscious, and so avoided these Supplementary Estimates. It seemed to him that had they intended to rise in August, they must have known that their programme could not possibly be finished, and the result more than justified the criticism which he had found it necessary to make.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid that, as his right hon. friend had pointed out, members of the Government must have known that they were going to have an autumn session, for they had a larger number of Bills than could be got through within the limits of an ordinary session. It was quite evident that a little foresight in this particular case would have prevented this Supplementary Estimate. Might he point out to the hon. Member
    1094
    for Sutherland that if he was really keen in his desire for economy, he could always go into the lobby against the Vote. He had understood him to say that the whole Vote should be swept away. But what he wished to call attention to was the item of £1,700 for witness and other Committee expenses. The original Estimate was £500, and the revised Estimate over £1,700. That was an enormous increase on the original Estimate, and he could see no excuse for such very bad provision being made in the original Estimate. It was possibly because the number of witnesses and Committee expenses had been a very large; but that was the result of a desire on the part of the Government to shelve all awkward questions by appointing Committees to consider them. What was gained by this additional expenditure of £1,200? What good had the Committees done to anybody; what advantage did anybody in the House gain by this large expenditure? As to another item for shorthand writing, the original Estimate was £1,000; the revised Estimate was £2,353—more than double. And what was the result of all the labour of these shorthand writers? He ventured to say that not three Members had ever looked at the result of all this shorthand work. They had spent something like £2,500 on these Committees, and the result had been simply nil. Nobody had gained anything by it except the shorthand writers and possibly the witnesses. He really hoped that the right hon. Gentleman who was now in charge of the Treasury, and who came as a new broom, would see that at any rate in this session no money was wasted in this way. If there were questions which required looking into, let them look into them in the House and not hand them to Committees. In the last Parliament, comparatively speaking, a very small number of questions were sent to Committee. There were then no critics like hon. Gentlemen opposite who were so severe on the late Government for referring subjects to Committee, partly on the ground of expense, and partly on the ground that the whole procedure was ludicrous and was not meant to be effective. Notwithstanding what they said when in opposition, now that they were in power, they came with revised Estimates which

    1095
    were more than double the original Estimates, the money having been spent on these Committees. He hoped an assurance would be given that during the present session money would not be wasted in this manner; failing that assurance, he should certainly divide against the Vote.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid he would like to ask the hon. Gentleman if he was able to inform the Committee whether any steps had been taken to carry out the recommendation of the Select Committee who sat last year with reference to the distribution of Parliamentary Papers. The Committee dealt with a large number of other matters, and made several recommendations which would be of considerable practical value, not only from the point of view of convenience but from the point of view of economy also. Paragraphs 42 and 49 of the Report of the Select Committee dealt with the distribution of Parliamentary Papers, and he wished to know if any action had been taken in the direction of carrying out those recommendations. As far as he was aware, there was no Parliamentary reason why the recommendations of that Committee should not be put into effect, and thereby enable a considerable reduction to be in the expenditure. Had it not been for the recommendations of that Select Committee the Supplementary Estimates they were now dealing with might have been much larger. With reference to the witnesses and other Committee expenses, the explanation in this instance was also the autumn session. It would be within the recollection of every Member of the House that a very considerable amount of work was placed upon hon. Members by the appointment of a number of Committees, and the large amount of work they had to perform. As far as he could make out, the expenditure of four Select Committees amounted to £836. That did not cover the whole of the extra amount required, the full sum being £1,700. He presumed the other expenses had been incurred in regard to private Bills. Appropriations in aid showed an increase of £1,630. There was another matter which was deserving of the attention of the Committee, and that was the payment of witnesses. This was a question which
    1096
    ought to be very carefully considered by the Government. The very valuable Return asked for by the Deputy-Chairman of Committees not only recorded the attendances of Members on the Select Committees, but it also gave the total of the expenses. He found that out of £836 expended by the four Select Committees, no less than £472 had been spent by one Select Committee, and that was the Committee appointed to inquire into the Land Values Taxation (Scotland) Bill. It seemed to him rather remarkable that so large a sum had been spent by one Committee. He did not know whether there was any particular reason why the witnesses before that Committee should have entailed so much extra cost. He noticed that the Housing of the Working Classes Amendment Bill Committee sat thirty-six times, and expended on witnesses £10 1s., whereas the Committee on the Land Values Taxation (Scotland) Bill sat only nineteen times and spent £472. He hoped such expenditure in the future would be considerably reduced.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he noticed that in regard to the delivery of the Votes and Parliamentary Papers £170 had been spent in extra wages. It was no small business to deliver so large a number of Parliamentary Papers rapidly and efficiently over such an immense area. It was generally felt that hon. Members owed a debt of gratitude to the men who delivered the Parliamentary Papers, and many hon. Members would like to see them paid better. He did not know whether they were civil servants or not, or whether they were precluded from receiving emoluments. There was another matter he desired to call attention to. He thought Hansard was a subject of considerable annoyance to hon. Members. They had a very notable instance of this in regard to the new gallery to the right of the Speaker's chair. He had searched Hansard to find what the First Commissioner of Works said on that particular subject when he introduced the various alterations which he proposed to make in regard to the House of Commons buildings, and he could not find any record of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in Hansard. Consequently, the House was in a great difficulty, because it found itself

    1097
    committed to a radical change in the arrangements of the Chamber, without having voted upon the alteration, and without having any record of that House in evidence that the First Commissioner had asked the assent of the House to such alterations.
    *The CHAIRMAN: Order, order. That Question of Hansard does not arise on this Vote.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYasked whether this item under discussion included any sum for Hansard, in which event he thought the observations he was making would be in order.
    *The CHAIRMAN: No; Hansard does not come under this Vote.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he would like some more information in regard to the item for witnesses and other Committee expenses. He wished to obtain some idea of the amount which had been spent by the Select Committee which inquired into the conditions of service and the pay of certain classes of Post-Office servants. He thought the Committee should be made aware of the cost of that inquiry. He also asked what was spent on the Committee which inquired into the grievances of the Post-Office servants. He inquired further what was the rate paid to the shorthand writers, and what were the terms of their appointment. Were they permanently or temporarily engaged, were they subject to rules, and what arrangements were made to secure the observance by them of secrecy in the discharge of their work? He was bound to say that the shorthand writers performed their work admirably, and therefore he hoped that the scale of Government pay compared favourably with that of shorthand writers engaged by the best employers in the great business houses of the metropolis. He did not see how verbatim reports could be avoided of what came before the various Committees, because unless the members of Committees and others concerned had every detail before them it was impossible for them to do the work properly when they came to consider the bearing of the evidence in preparing their Reports. Therefore,
    1098
    although there were complaints in regard to the bulkiness of the volumes issued, he nevertheless believed that it was to the general advantage that this expense should be incurred. On the other hand, he must say that there were too often grave errors in the reports, not on the part of the shorthand writers, but in the reproduction of their work by the printers. Might he ask the Secretary of the Treasury to state how many shorthand writers were employed last session and how many were allocated to each Committee? He noticed that there were constant changes, and he should like to know why that was the case. Unquestionably when a shorthand writer became accustomed to the working of a Committee it was less labour to him to do his work, and greater certainty and exactness were in that way obtained. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would be able to give the Committee some information on these matters.
    MR. W. T. WILSONasked whether better arrangements could be made for obtaining the Orders of the Day and other Papers necessary for following the business of the House. At present there was a good deal of crowding at the narrow doorway.
    *The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is asking about the expendituree of money in other ways. This is a Supplementary Estimate for money for work which has been concluded, or is arranged for and is going to be finished, and money cannot be taken for other purposes out of the Supplementary Estimate now before us.
    *The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (MR. Runciman,)said the increase in this Vote was due, as his hon. friend the Member for Sutherlandshire had pointed out, to the fact that there was an autumn session last year. Their servants had to be paid extra for their attendance at the House.
    MR. MORTON: Are they not paid by the year?
    *MR RUNCIMANsaid it was only in some cases that the salaries covered the

    1099
    whole year. [An HON. MEMBER: Why have autumn sessions?] That was obviously a matter over which he had no control. It was entirely in the hands of the Leader of the House, who, if a question were addressed to him on the subject, would no doubt give the hon. Member a polite, and possibly a humorous, reply. Autumn sessions were held for the convenience of private Members as well as Ministers, and it was impossible to have an autumn session without having expense. It would be contrary to all precedent to put down in the Estimates at the beginning of spring a sum for an autumn session. He knew of no case in which that had ever been done. The hon. Member for the City of London had asked why there had been so many Committees. He did not know that that was a matter that rested with the Secretary to the Treasury. The reason why the Committees were appointed must be well known to every Member of the House. A great many of those Committees did most excellent work, and he hoped that in the course of the current year they would see some of the good effects which would proceed from the adoption of many of the recommendations of the Committee which sat to consider the question of the distribution of Parliamentary Papers. MR. Speaker had done everything in his power to make, in accordance with the recommendations of that Committee, a more economical arrangement with regard to the printing and circulation of those Papers. A new contract made on the recommendation of the Committee would, he hoped, result in a considerable diminution of the expenditure under this head. He might point out that this question scarcely arose on the Supplementary Estimate now before the Committee. As a matter of fact the cost of the Committee which made the recommendations did not appear on this Vote, and the recommendations could not be carried out under any of the items on the Estimates under discussion. A question had been asked as to the expenditure of the Committee on the Land Values (Scotland) Bill. It was perfectly obvious that if witnesses were brought from Scotland the cost would be more than in the case of witnesses who had merely to take a tram or a cab to reach the House of Commons. Scotsmen
    1100
    who took an interest in this subject, the representatives of great municipalities, and others representing the various sides of the question, were entitled to be heard by the Committee, and it was not in the power of the Government to restrict the number. As to the amount paid to the messengers who distributed the Votes and Proceedings, he would point out to the hon. Member who asked a question on the subject that they certainly were not overworked, and he had heard of no complaint made by them. If any complaint was made he would make inquiry into it.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he wanted to know what weights they carried.
    *MR RUNCIMANsaid he did not know, but if the hon. Member put a question on the Paper, it would be answered in due course. As for the charges made for shorthand writing, they were undoubtedly heavy, but they were governed by a scale settled a long time ago. If the hon. Member looked up page 923 of Volume 48 of the Parliamentary Debates he would find all the particulars he desired on the subject. The charges were certainly not excessive. The changes which had taken place in the Committee room were necessary for the accommodation of the shorthand writers, whose ability had never been questioned; and any information which they might have obtained in the course of their work had never leaked out.
    *MR STUART WORTLEYsaid that the Royal Commission on Local Taxation held some sittings in Edinburgh in 1898, and he did not see why the Select Committee should have gone over the ground again.
    MR. DALZIELsaid there was no desire on the part of the Scottish Members that the Select Committee on the Land Values Bill should sit upstairs, although he was alone in his protest against it. At the same time, he must admit he did not now object to the expense incurred, because the Committee had gained very useful information. As to the shorthand charges, he thought that they were larger than they would be if the printing were done in London

    1101
    instead of at Reading and elsewhere. From his own experience he knew that Members of Committees could not obtain Reports of the evidence taken three days before, because there were not a sufficient number of shorthand writers in order to get their notes written out quickly, and because the transcript had to be sent to Reading in order to be printed, and the proofs brought back to London. He insisted that the printing ought to be done in London.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid that the explanation that the expense was caused by the autumn session was not sufficient. Of course the hon. Gentleman was not responsible for the autumn session, but the Prime Minister and his Government were, and in his opinion the money spent on that session would have been much better in the pockets of the taxpayers. Under the circumstances he proposed to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000. As to the printing of the reports of the Committees, he did not see why it should not be done in London and not in Reading, unless it was that it was cheaper to have it done in Reading than in London.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £550, be granted for the said Service."—(Sir F. Banbury.)
    MR. T. L. CORBETTasked whether the shorthand writers were permanent civil servants, and he joined the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London in asking why the printing was done at Reading instead of in London. Was the rate of wages paid in Reading the same as in London?
    *MR RUNCIMANsaid that the shorthand writers were not civil servants. Shorthand writing was done under contract, and the present holder of the contract had appeared twice at the Bar of the House.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: Who is the contractor?
    MR. RUNCIMANsaid that the contracting firm was Gurneys, of which
    1102
    MR. Salter was the head. The shorthand writers were not servants of the House, but of the contractors. The printing was done at Reading, not because the rate of pay was lower, but because it was more convenient, and printing was tending to go more and more out of London.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he would remind the hon. Gentleman that when the present contract was entered into it was based on the rate of wages paid in London and not those paid in Reading.
    MR. DALZIELsaid that of course they recognised that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote was in no way responsible for the custom which had grown up of sending the printing to Reading. The result was that when Committees met at eleven o'clock they could not get on with their work because the proofs of the evidence were not available. That was not a satisfactory state of things. He had nothing to complain of in regard to the shorthand writing, because he thought the House was splendidly served by the staff of excellent reporters. What he complained of was that the printing was not done nearer to this House, because it was obviously more difficult to get the reports down to Reading and brought back to London than if the printing were done in London. He was under the impression that when the contract was made tenders were invited in the ordinary way from London firms, who competed on London rates. The question was one for the convenience of hon. Members, and the Committee would rest content with an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that he would look into the whole matter.
    MR. T. L. CORBETTthought the Committee had been rather struck by the statement that MR. Salter, who contracted for their Committee Reports, occasionally appeared at the Bar of the House. He had asked a number of hon. friends what the meaning of that phrase was, but had not been able to obtain a satisfactory explanation, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be

    1103
    able to tell him why MR. Salter had to appear at the Bar.
    *The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is asking a question which does not at all arise on this Vote.
    MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he was only asking a question about the matter.
    *The CHAIRMAN: I have told the hon. Member that he is out of order. I heard what he asked.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 23; Noes, 206. (Division List No. 9.)

    AYES.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Dixon, Sir Daniel

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Faber, George Denison (York).

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Fell, Arthur

    Staveley-hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfo'd

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Cave, George

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

    Frederick Banbury and Mr.

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Meysey-Thompson.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

    Cremer, William Randal

    Hudson, Walter

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Crombie, John William

    Jackson, R. S.

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Cullinan, J.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Astbury, John Meir

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Jordon, Jeremiah

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Jowett, F. W.

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Joyce, Michael

    Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.

    Delany, William

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Kelley, George D.

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Dolan, Charles Joseph

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Duffy, William J.

    Kincaid-Smith, Captain

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Bell, Richard

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accringt'n

    Bennett, E. N.

    Elibank, Master of

    Lehmann. R. C.

    Bertram, Julius

    Erskine, David C.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

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

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Levy, Maurice

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Billson, Alfred

    Faber, G. H. (Boston)

    Lough, Thomas

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Lundon, W.

    Brace, William

    Fenwick, Charles

    Lupton, Arnold

    Branch, James

    Ffrench, Peter

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Brigg, John

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

    Brooke, Stopford

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

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

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T (Cheshire

    Fullerton, Hugh

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Ginnell, L.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    M'Crae, George

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Glendinning, R. G.

    M'Kean, John

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Chance, Frederick William

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Maddison, Frederick

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Hall, Frederick

    Massie, J.

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

    Meagher, Michael

    Clarke, C. Goddard

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Meehan, Patrick A.

    Clough, William

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

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

    Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire, N. E.

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Montgomery, H. G.

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

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Mooney, J. J.

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Morrell, Philip

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

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Morton, Alpheus Cloephas

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Murphy, John

    Cory, Clifford John

    Higham, John Sharp

    Murray, James

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Hodge, John

    Myer, Horatio

    Cowan, W. H.

    Hogan, Michael

    Napier, T. B.

    Cox, Harold

    Hooper, A. G.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Nuttall, Harry

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Verney, F. W.

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'y, Mid)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (B'df'rd

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Robinson, S.

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

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Rowlands, J.

    Wardle, George J.

    O'Dowd, John

    Runciman, Walter

    Waring, Walter

    O'Malley, William

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Watt, H. Anderson

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Sears, J. E.

    Weir, James Galloway

    Partington, Oswald

    Seaverns, J. H.

    White, Luke (York, E.R.)

    Paul, Herbert

    Seddon, J.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

    Shackleton, David James

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Wilkie, Alexander

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

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Radford, G. H.

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Soares, Ernest J.

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

    Reddy, M.

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Rees, J. D.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Tellers for the Noes—

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn

    Summerbell, T.

    Mr. Whiteley and MR. J. A.

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Pease.

    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    4. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £255, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Chief Secretary in Dublin and London, and Expenses under the Inebriates Acts."
    *MR MEYSEY-THOMPSONhe would like to congratulate the Chief Secretary for Ireland upon his appointment to his present post, which he would doubtless adorn with a display of the same ability and courtesy which had won him the respect of the House in another sphere of duty. He wished to ask the Chief Secretary for an explanation of the Supplementary Estimate of £200 required for the Chief Secretary's office. He understood, in fact the official explanation in the footnote on the Paper stated, that this additional £200 was to meet the excess of expenditure for travelling expenses of the Chief Secretary and Under-Secretary in consequence of the autumn session. The autumn session lasted nine weeks and that was roughly speaking £22 a week. That seemed to him to be rather a large sum, and he would like to know what was included in it. Were the travelling expenses of the Chief Secretary and his private secretary included in this, be-
    1106
    cause, as no doubt the Chief Secretary was aware, no travelling expenses were allowed to the Chief Secretary between London and Dublin, although he was entitled to a certain personal allowance when travelling on Government business in Ireland. He wished, therefore, to point out that if part of this sum was charged for the travelling expenses of the Chief Secretary and his private secretary between London and Dublin, this was a claim which could not be allowed, as the Chief Secretary was not entitled to any such allowance, but if it was claimed for the travelling expenses of the Chief Secretary in Ireland, he would like to ask what on earth that had to do with the autumn session of Parliament sitting in London. A first classre turn fare to Dublin was £4 13s., and if this item was accurate the Under-Secretary and his subordinate must have made a good many journeys between London and Dublin. Besides, at the time the Congested Districts Board was sitting in London, and he believed that during the greater part of the period for which these expenses were charged, the Under-Secretary was, as a matter of fact, in London. It therefore resolved itself into this, that if this large sum were claimed for the travelling expenses of the Chief Secretary and his private secretary between London and Dublin, this was a claim which could not be allowed, and was against all precedence. If, on the other hand, it was claimed for the Under-Secretary's travelling expenses, the sum of £22 per week was out of all reason

    1107
    under the circumstances, but if the Chief Secretary were to say that this sum included the expenses of bringing witnesses over to London in connection with the Congested Districts Board, he would like to ask why the Congested Districts Board, which was doing its work very satisfactorily in Dublin, was brought over to London, and whether it was done for the convenience of the Under-Secretary, and if so, why all this extra expense was incurred without due cause. Unless the Chief Secretary could give an assurance that the expenses of tie Chief Secretary were not included he would like to ask if the Treasury had given their approval of this expense being paid and whether there was any precedent for it. He would also like to ask what was the scale of allowance which was made or had been made in this case for travelling expenses. If it was true that the Chief Secretary's expenses were included it was very important that the right hon. Gentleman should state why these allowances had been made.
    MR. T. L. CORBETTasked whether the sum of £200 mentioned meant the travelling expenses of both the Chief Secretary and the Under-Secretary. Then he noted there was an item of £50 for an inebriate home in Waterford. He was quite sure there could be no real connection below these two items. It was curious that none of the Nationalist Members were present to take part in this discussion. It would have offered them a splendid opportunity of discussing what was evidently a great extravagance, and it was only to be feared that their absence showed the cloven hoof of the arrangement and understanding between them and the Government. The total amount of money granted to the Chief Secretary was £26,118, and he believed that the Chief Secretary's salary was £4,800. Surely £200 more was not wanted for travelling expenses. If it was wanted for the Assistant-Secretary, the gentleman who had become quite famous during the past year, Sir Antony MacDonell, he thought the less that gentleman was in Ireland the better. He might have a first-class ticket from Ireland to London, or even to India, where he might adorn the post he had previously occupied with so much distinction; but to
    1108
    Ireland, or in Ireland, no. The present Government were returned to economise. It was lavish to the verge of extravagance in voting money to its own friends. The late Chief Secretary was a conspicuous example of that. He did not blame the Government for in their probably short tenure of power lavishing money on their friends.
    MR. LEIF JONESappealed to the Chairman whether it was in order, on this item, to discuss what the hon. Member thought the general extravagance of the Government.
    THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid he was just going to call the hon. Gentleman to order. The hon. Gentleman must limit himself to these travelling expenses during the autumn session.
    MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he did not wish to embark upon the general question of Government extravagance; it was really far too wide a subject. A first-class ticket from London to Dublin and back again surely did not cost £200, and that being so, he begged to move that this Vote be reduced by the sum of £200.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £55, be granted for the said Service."—(MR. Thomas Corbett.)
    MR. MORTONobjected to this amount entirely. He thought the amount in the original Estimate for the Irish Office was quite enough to keep it up both in Ireland and England, although Ireland was the most inefficiently and most extravagantly governed country that he knew. He was not surprised that they had to travel about in this way, because Irish Secretaries did not last long. He would like to know whether the £55 for an inebriates' home was provided for the Irish Secretaries?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell,): Are any of my predecessors in that home?
    MR. MORTONcould not say; it would be a good thing, perhaps, if a good many of them were. The autumn session in any case ought not to cause any difference to the already excessive cost of government in Ireland.
    MR. BIRRELLdid not know that anybody was to be congratulated, particularly if he were hungry, on finding it to be his first duty on these Estimates to explain, in the dinner hour, an item like this, which, however, he admitted, required explanation. It was not accurately described. It did not refer only to the travelling expenses of the Under-Secretary during the autumn session; it referred as well to the excess of expenses generally, in Ireland, of the Chief Secretary when he was engaged in making tours over a part of Ireland in the public service. The Chief Secretary, received no allowance in respect of his travelling expenses to and from Dublin. His private secretary had an allowance to cover his expenses, but the Chief Secretary had none whatever. When the Chief Secretary was in Ireland he went touring about to see things that might be done, supposing he had the money. In respect of the expenses he incurred he was entitled to have an excess sum. This £200 represented an excess sum for the peregrinations of his predecessor—for the expenses of his tours through Ireland. There were also the travelling expenses of the Under-Secretary between London and Dublin. When the Under-Secretary was in London he was entitled to a guinea a night while in the public service; and it was undoubtedly the fact that, for reasons he need not now go into, he was obliged to be frequently in London, more especially during the autumn session, and he was entitled to travelling expenses and subsistence money to a much larger amount than normally could have been anticipated. Owing to the autumn session officials were kept at the Irish Office who, in ordinary circumstances, would have gone back to their homes in Ireland, and would not have incurred so much expense. In these circumstances, it was not surprising that a Supplementary Estimate should have to be made. He thought the account given in the printed Paper was in a sense misleading, and fully justified hon. Gentlemen opposite in their criticism. As to the charge for the inebriate homes, he did not follow the humour with reference to it; it was a statutory demand. These homes for inebriates had their claims, under the Act, upon the Irish Government, and the subject did not in any way lend itself to jest or to further inquiry. It was the first time in that House that he found
    1110
    himself trying to discuss these estimates, but he hoped that they would find him at all times perfectly ready to explain them as far as he could.
    MR. STAVELEY-HILLasked whether there were any other homes of a similar character to the one under discussion in Ireland.
    MR. BIRRELLsaid he had no doubt there were, and the hon. Gentleman need be under no apprehension that they would be overlooked. They were statutory demands which were made in respect of them, and could not be overlooked.
    *MR LEIF JONESsaid these inebriates' homes had a statutory claim to a fixed sum per head for maintenance of inebriates committed to them.
    MR. HICKS BEACHsaid he could find no other similar claim in the Vote at all, and it seemed to him rather an extraordinary thing to put on the Supplementary Estimate.
    MR. BIRRELLsaid he had no doubt similar claims appeared in other accounts, only this one was put in by itself for some reason. He would, however, look into the matter, and give the hon. Gentleman an explanation.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid the explanation given in the printed Paper was clearly misleading, because if they referred to the original Vote they would find that Heading D, to which the item obviously related, dealt with the salaries of inspectors and professional assistance in connection with asylum buildings, staff officers, clerical assistance, messengers, etc. The total amount was £3,531. It was perfectly evident that this grant, which turned out to be a contribution, at least it appeared in that way on the Vote, should be put down as a Supplementary Grant to the salaries of inspectors, staff officers, and clerical assistance. The item was evidently in the wrong place, and the Chief Secretary would agree with them that they rather required to be informed why this particular sum was now asked for. It was impossible to contend for a moment, except in a

    1111
    Hibernian manner, that this particular donation to St. Patrick's Home could possibly be supplementary to somebody's salary. He thought the Chief Secretary should take the Vote back, and put it down at some time when he could really tell the Committee to which particular Vote it was supplementary. As to the sum of £200, it appeared a small amount, but inasmuch as it was additional to the usual amount allowed for this purpose, £1,500, it was an increase of 15 per cent on the ordinary charges, and he thought that was a matter for comment. They were told that it was for extra travelling expenses of the Chief Secretary and the Under-Secretary. There was not a word about the Chief Secretary in the original Estimate, and therefore it was perfectly irregular to add an amount for the Chief Secretary who was not mentioned in the Vote, and who certainly had the rather large salary of £4,500 or £4,600. He was informed that no Chief Secretary in the past had ever collected expenses for travelling. Why should MR. Bryce, who was the Chief Secretary last year—he did not think the present Chief Secretary would have done so—have suddenly sprung £200 upon this particular Estimate? They ought to be told how and why this was. The Chief Secretary and the Under-Secretary had this £200 between them—£100 each additional for travelling expenses. It was impossible that Sir Antony MacDonnell, who was in London during the autumn session in order to see that the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill got duly through the House, could have spent any such sum of money. It appeared to him that as regarded the two items to which he had referred the information put before the Committee was absolutely misleading, and that the statements made in the Vote were not true. He really suggested that the Chief Secretary should take the Vote back and bring it up again with a proper explanation.
    *MR. CULLINANsaid the total original estimate was £36,218, and the Government now required the £55 because the St. Patrick's Home, Waterford, was a new institution, and the amount was taken for the expenses of the current year. That was the mare's nest which hon. Members above the gangway had found.
    MR. ASHLEYthought that if the private secretary to the Chief Secretary did not receive any travelling allowance he ought to do so, because he was obliged to travel frequently from London to Dublin and back again.
    MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid an hon. Member below the gangway had told them that the St. Patrick's Inebriates' Home was established six months ago. In that case the contention that it was on the same basis as other similar institutions entirely disappeared. This seemed to him to be part of the "larger policy." He thought the hon. and learned Member for Waterford was the real explanation of this particular grant. The Chief Secretary had stated that his predecessor used to travel about Ireland with an empty pocket and a full heart, and that therefore he was entitled to some compensation in the way of travelling expenses. He did not think that £4,800 a year was too much for the present Chief Secretary, but a salary like that ought not to be described as an empty pocket. He thought a large number of hon. Members below the gangway would be well satisfied if they enjoyed an income equal to only a small portion of £4,800 a year. It had been said that this £200 had been spent upon the Under-Secretary. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was going to make a new departure in this respect. The Chief Secretary had admitted that the explanation given upon the Estimates was somewhat misleading, and under the circumstances they would be compelled to divide the Committee.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid the Chief Secretary had stated that the £200 which was asked for to meet the expenses for travelling of the Chief and Under-Secretaries during the autumn sittings was incorrect, and that the amount was really for the whole of the year. He did not think that explanation made the matter any better, although it did away with the idea that the money had been spent during two months, and it certainly seemed impossible that anyone could have spent £200 in two months travelling between London and Dublin.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: Had he been a railway director he could have travelled for nothing.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid this was the first time he had seen travelling expenses on the Estimates for any Minister. He agreed that Ministers had a great deal to do, and they should be paid extremely well for their services. He objected, however, to all these extras, and he could not understand this policy on the part of a Government which came into power on the cry of economy. The Party opposite were not content with voting salaries to themselves, but they were now introducing a pernicious system of doles to Ministers in the shape of travelling expenses. He hoped the Chief Secretary would give the Committee some further explanation, and assure them that in future Chief Secretaries and other Ministers would defray their expenses out of their own money. With regard to St. Patrick's Inebriates' Home, Waterford, no doubt it was a good institution, and one which the Chief Secretary might very well subscribe to out of his own pocket, but he would like to know why the British taxpayer should be called upon to contribute towards this Home.
    MR. BIRRELLsaid the British taxpayer already contributed £27,000 towards similar institutions in England, £2,000 in Scotland, and, as far as he knew, this £55 was the only sum paid to institutions of this kind in Ireland.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid that £55 ought not to be paid by the Treasury
    out of the taxes for institutions of this kind in Ireland or elsewhere.
    MR. BIRRELL: They are obliged to do it under the Act.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid he hoped that before the Report Stage the right hon. Gentleman would make quite certain as to why this money had been spent. If the expenditure had been incurred in consequence of a new Act of Parliament the fact ought to have been shown in the Estimates. He trusted that the Committee would show its disapproval of this kind of expenditure in the division lobby.
    MR. T. L. CORBETTasked whether this grant to the St. Patrick's Inebriates Home was an annual one, and under which Act of Parliament the grant had been made.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: And also whether there are any vacancies in the Home.
    MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he would also like to know what the salary of the permanent Under-Secretary was.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 25; Noes, 198. (Division List No. 10.)

    AYES.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Rutherford, W.W. (Liverpool)

    Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Fell, Arthur

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Valentia, Viscount

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Cave, George

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

    T. L. Corbett and Mr.

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Ashley.

    Dixon, Sir Daniel

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    NOES

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Brooke, Stopford

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Bennett, E. N.

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

    Astbury, John Meir

    Bertram, Julius

    Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J.T. (Ches.

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'd

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Billson, Alfred

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Brace, William

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Beale, W. P.

    Brigg, John

    Chance, Frederick William

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Hudson, Walter

    Paul, Herbert

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs.; Leek)

    Clarke, C. Goddard

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Clough, William

    Jowett, F. W.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

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

    Joyce, Michael

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancr's, W)

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Gr'st'd

    Kelley, George D.

    Reddy, M.

    Cory, Clifford John

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Kincaid-Smith, Captain

    Rees, J. D.

    Cowan, W. H.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

    Cox, Harold

    Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Cremer, William Randal

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Crombie, John William

    Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Crossley, William J.

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd

    Cullinan, J.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Levy, Maurice

    Robinson, S.

    Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Delany, William

    Lough, Thomas

    Rowlands, J.

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Lundon, W.

    Runciman, Walter

    Dolan, Charles Joseph

    Lupton, Arnold

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Duffy, William J.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

    Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs

    Sears, J. E.

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Shackleton, David James

    Elibank, Master of

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

    Erskine, David C.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Everett, R. Lacey

    M'Callum, John M.

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

    Faber, G. H. (Boston)

    M'Crae, George

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    M'Kean, John

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Fenwick. Charles

    M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Ferens, T. R.

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Ffrench, Peter

    Maddison, Frederick

    Sullivan, Donal

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Massie, J.

    Summerbell, T.

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Meagher, Michael

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Meehan, Patrick A.

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Verney, F. W.

    Gill, A. H.

    Montgomery, H. G.

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Ginnell, L.

    Mooney, J. J.

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

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Morrell, Philip

    Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Waring, Walter

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Murphy, John

    Watt, H. Anderson

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Murray, James

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Hall, Frederick

    Myer, Horatio

    Weir, James Galloway

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

    Napier, T. B.

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr T'dvil)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Harvey, W.E. (Derbyshire, N. E

    Nuttall, Harry

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Connor, John, (Kildare, N.)

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Henry, Charles S.

    O'Dowd, John

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

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Malley, William

    Hodge, John

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Hogan, Michael

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Whiteley and MR. J. A.

    Hooper, A. G.

    Partington, Oswald

    Pease.

    Original Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 200; Noes, 24. (Division List No. 11.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

    Beale, W. P.

    Brace, William

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Brigg, John

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Astbury, John Meir

    Bennett, E. N.

    Brooke, Stopford

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Bertram, Julius

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

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

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

    Brunnor, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T (Chesh.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford

    Billson, Alfred

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Hooper, A. G.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Hudson, Walter

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Chance, Frederick William

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Jordan, Jeremiah

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

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Clark, C. Goddard

    Joyce, Michael

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Clough, William

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Reddy, M.

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

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Kelley, George D.

    Rees, J. D.

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

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

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

    Kincaid-Smith, Captain

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Cory, Clifford John

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd

    Cox, Harold

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Cremer, William Randal

    Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

    Robinson, S.

    Crombie, John William

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Crossley, William J.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

    Rowlands, J.

    Cullinan, J.

    Levy, Maurice

    Runciman, Walter

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Lough, Thomas

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Delany, William

    Lundon, W.

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Lupton, Arnold

    Shackleton, David James

    Dolan, Charles Joseph

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

    Duffy, William J.

    Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Elibank, Master of

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Erskine, David C.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    M'Crae, George

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Everett, R. Lacey

    M'Kean, John

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Faber, G. H. (Boston)

    M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Sullivan, Donal

    Farrell, James Patrick

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Summerbell, T.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Maddison, Frederick

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Ferens, T. R.

    Massie, J.

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Ffrench, Peter

    Meagher, Michael

    Toulmin, George

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Meehan, Patrick A.

    Verney, F. W.

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Montgomery, H. G.

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

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Mooney, J. J.

    Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

    Gill, A. H.

    Morrell, Philip

    Waring, Walter

    Ginnell, L.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Watt, H. Anderson

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Murphy, John

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Murray, James

    Weir, James Galloway

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Myer, Horatio

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Napier, T. B.

    White, Luke (York, E.R.)

    Hall, Frederick

    Norman, Sir Henry

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Hart-Davies, T.

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Hervey, W. E.(Derbyshire, N.E.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Dowd, John

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

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Malley, William

    Henry, Charles S.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Whiteley and MR. J. A.

    Hodge, John

    Partington, Oswald

    Pease.

    Hogan, Michael

    Paul, Herbert

    NOES.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Fell, Arthur

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

    Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Valentia, Viscount

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Cave, George

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

    T. L. Corbett and Mr.

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Ashley.

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Dixon, Sir Daniel

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    CLASS III.
    5. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."
    MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he wished to ask the Attorney-General to explain why the Department over which he presided was so misinformed as to the corrupt practices at the Worcester election, which were quite notorious, that only £30 was put down for expenses when £2,000 was required. Surely it was time that there should be some re-organisation of the Department, and a protest made against the way in which its business was conducted. Particulars should be given as to the expenditure instead of its being put into a lump sum. He wished to know how much was given to Members of the Bar, and how much was spent in the preparation of evidence, and on other items; and whether, in the opinion of the Attorney-General, there had been a careful audit of this expenditure so that the money of the tax-payers should be safe-guarded. Hon. Members who had had experience of legal proceedings knew how they were at the mercy of lawyers, and how impossible it was to effect economy in their expenses. As tot he case of the Bodmin election petition, he would not trouble the Committee with the details, but it was common knowledge that corrupt practices there were not all on one side; and it was possible that, if proper steps had been taken, a good deal of public money might have been saved in connection with that inquiry. It was known that certain parties in that borough were ready to get up election petitions to provide work for the lawyers.
    MR. MYERasked whether it was in order to discuss a political matter on this Supplementary Vote.
    THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Member could not review the policy under which those proceedings were conducted. The expenditure was
    1120
    incurred under the provisions of the Corrupt Practices Act.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he would not have made the remark if he had known he was out of order. What he objected to was that the whole of these expenses were lumped together, and the Committee had no real information as to how the money had been expended. That was not business. What must be insisted upon was that hon. Members should know, first of all, that those employed by the State were properly remunerated; secondly, that there was not undue extravagance; and thirdly, that the Members of certain professions did not get better remuneration than they were entitled to. Some of these election petitions were got up to make a sort of job for the legal profession, and he hoped that in future there would be fewer of them.
    MR. MORTONsaid on the face of it there seemed to be a great waste of money in connection with this Vote. £2,000 was not the whole of it. The Vote was for £3,598, but £1,598 was to be taken from savings out of other sub-heads of the Vote. So far as they knew no extra election Judges had been appointed, and there was no apparent necessity for spending more money than had been already voted. There was a great deal of complaint outside about the unnecessary amount of money given to Judges for travelling expenses, and it seemed to him a wicked waste of public money to give this £2,000, which he supposed was largely made up of travelling expenses of Judges and others, in addition to the £319,000 already voted.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Walton,)said that the orginal vote of £319,066 included only £30 under this head of expenditure. That was obviously an inadequate sum, having regard to the fact that five election petitions had been before the Judges. In answer to the question why so small a sum as £30 was put down, he assumed that it was not contemplated that the expenses actually incurred would be so large. The estimate was made in the usual way, but the criticism which had been made would receive consideration. The charge of £3,598 however, he submitted, was not an extravagant one,

    1121
    considering the expenses incident to an election petition, and the Committee might take it that the Treasury, with the traditional economy of that Department, would not have allowed a larger sum than they were compelled to. A good deal of the expenditure in connection with an election petition was borne by the unsuccessful party and the country had nothing to do with it. The whole of this outlay was incident to the appointment of certain Judges to try election petitions and was necessary, having regard to the dignity which attached to such a tribunal. It involved the cost of keeping them for the time during which they might be engaged in the actual work of the petition. In some cases the inquiry lasted several days—in Yarmouth many days. At all events a considerable time was occupied. He was not aware of any item which should not be paid, and he thought there was no ground for criticism.
    SIR F. BANBURY: Do the Judges simply get their expenses?
    Sir JOHN WALTON: They simply get their expenses.
    MR. MORTON: Are these expenses £10 or £7 10s. a day?
    SIR JOHN WALTON: I think it is £7.
    MR. MORTON: Well, it is too much.
    SIR F. BANBURYthought the hon. and learned Gentleman had not given a sufficient explanation when he said that this expense was incurred only for the Judges and did not involve any expense for the counsel or for the trial. The only explanation was that this sum of money had been spent on the Judges, and the hon. and learned Gentleman had not given the items. He understood that the hon. and learned Member admitted that the statement of the items was not sufficiently clear, and undertook to see that on any future occasion the Estimate should be framed in a clearer manner. He was much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his statement, but it was a pity that such a course had not been adopted before, because it would have prevented the Committee being put in a difficult position and would have
    1122
    saved time. As to the lump sum, the total amount spent upon election petitions appeared to be £3,598. There were five election petitions, which would give the cost at about £700 apiece. That, of course, was a rough and ready way of reckoning, because one election petition might have lasted longer than another; but they were obliged to make this calculation for themselves. He wished to say a few words on the question of the sums which were paid to His Majesty's Judges.
    SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he had omitted to state that, although some of these sums went to the Judges, there were also the expenses of the Public Prosecutor, and also, possibly, the cost of the shorthand notes. What he meant to explain was that these expenses were the expenses of the Court, and did not include the fees of counsel or expenses of that kind.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid he understood that these were expenses which were given first of all to the Judges, secondly, to any person who was there to assist the Judges, and thirdly, expenses incurred for providing a Court House in a locality in which a Court House did not exist. He thought that great care should be taken to see that no more money than was necessary was spent. A Judge, like any other person, could not be in more than one place at a time, and if he was trying an election petition he could not attend the assizes. Therefore, the money which would have been spent at the assizes would be saved. What they wanted to find out was whether this money had been spent in an economical way, and he thought they were justified in raising the question because, in consequence of the way in which the Estimate was framed, it was impossible for them to form any judgment whatever. In regard to this expenditure he did not say that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were worse than their predecessors, but they looked to those benches for improvement, and for an amendment of the existing order of things. He could not congratulate the Government on the manner in which they had prepared their Estimates. He thought the Committee ought to have some explanation of whether this expenditure

    1123
    which they were told, was chiefly upon the Judges was justifiable or not. He thought that the Secretary to the Treasury should give some explanation of the way in which the money had been spent.
    MR. MYERsaid he was inclined to think that the hon. Gentleman was right in his contention. He had, moreover, put forward his points in a businesslike manner. He thought the hon. Baronet was right in saying that he expected better business from that side of the House. Why did not the Government give them more details instead of putting down a round sum? He hoped that in future, in such a case as this, figures would be put before them which any business man could understand.
    MR. MORTONsaid he had no doubt the hon. Gentleman would give the best explanation he could, but obviously there were no particulars in the Estimates before the Committee, and the Vote ought not to have been taken that day unless the hon. Gentleman was prepared to furnish particulars. Up to the present moment this expenditure had been kept absolutely secret, which was not only wrong but also illegal, and upon Report he would take the opportunity of asking for full particulars of this £598, the names of the Judges to whom it was paid, and how much they received, so that he could see whether the payment was a proper one.
    COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid they had asked the Financial Secretary to explain this riddle which had for some little time puzzled the House. As he understood, the Judges for this work were chosen by the bench itself. If a Judge was going to try election petitions it was obvious that he could not be occupied with any of the other work for which he received a salary. The question he desired to ask was, why should a Judge who was trying election petitions be paid an extra salary, seeing that he would have been doing his regular work elsewhere if he had not been engaged on election petitions?
    *MR RUNCIMANsaid he was glad to be able to give the information asked for. The total expenditure for election petitions was £3,598. The actual amount
    1124
    spent in each case was, £340 5s. 7d. for the Attercliffe petition, £1,273 16s. 1d. for the Bodmin petition, £699 5s. 10d. for the Maidstone petition, £498 13s. 9d. for the Worcester petition, £784 3s. 7d. for the Yarmouth petition, and on the Appleby petition, which had not come to trial, £2 2s. He pointed out that on another part of the Vote there had been a saving of £1,541,and that all the Government was now asking for was the balance of £2,000. He might say, in reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that there was no extra remuneration for the Judges concerned. The whole of this money had gone in payments to clerks, travelling and other expenses, shorthand writers, and so on.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYthanked the hon. Gentleman for the information he had given. The only thing that occurred to him now that it had been given was why it had not been given before. The information itself, however, was hardly satisfactory. Although the hon. Member had given some items they were only the lump sums paid in the case of each petition. They were sums that no accountant would pass in auditing a balance sheet. What the Committee desired to know, and what they would know at some time or other, was how these particular sums had been spent, whether in any particular case there had been extravagance, and whether there had been an expenditure which ought not to have occurred.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid it was not necessary for the hon. Gentleman to point out in an Estimate of this kind that, there having been a saving on something else, it left only £2,000 for the consideration of the Committee. He said that because the hon. Member was young in office, and because he hoped the hon. Member would see that such an explanation could have no effect. What the Government had saved was nothing to the Committee. The Committee had to consider the expenditure.
    MR. MORTONsubmitted that the explanation of the Financial Secretary was no explanation; the hon. Gentleman had given no particulars, and therefore he should press for the particulars on Report.
    MR. MYERasked whether the hon. Gentleman could give the details.
    MR. T. L. CORBETThoped that now the hon. Gentleman had been pressed by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House he would not ignore them in this matter.
    MR. RUNCIMANwas understood to say that he was always glad to give information for the purpose of facilitating business. He did not pride himself on the saving that had been made on this
    Vote. Over nearly the whole of this expenditure the Treasury had no control at all. The only reason why he mentioned the saving was to show that the Vote they were considering was practically only £2,000. He would do his best, if the hon. Member for Sutherland cared to move for a return, to grant it.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 211; Noes, 32. (Division List, No. 12.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Dolan, Charles Joseph

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Duffy, William J.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford

    Astbury, John Meir

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

    Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Dunne, Major E.Martin (Wals'll

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Elibank, Master of

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Erskine, David C.

    Levy, Maurice

    Beale, W. P.

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Beauchamp, E.

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Lough, Thomas

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Lundon, W.

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Fenwick, Charles

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Bennett, E. N.

    Ferens, T. R.

    Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'hs

    Bertram, Julius

    Ffrench, Peter

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Bethell, Sir J.H. (Essex, R'mf'd

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Billson, Alfred

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Fullerton, Hugh

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

    Brace, William

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Brigg, John

    Gill, A. H.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    M'Crae, George

    Brooke, Stopford

    Glendinning, R. G.

    M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Ches.

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Gulland, John W.

    Massie, J.

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Meagher, Michael

    Burns, Rt. Hn. John

    Hall, Frederick

    Meehan, Patrick A.

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

    Menzies, Walter

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Mond, A.

    Chance, Frederick William

    Harvey, W.E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

    Montgommery, H. G.

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Mooney, J. J.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Clarke, C. Goddard

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Morrell, Philip

    Clough, William

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

    Murphy, John

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Henry, Charles S.

    Murray, James

    Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancr's, W.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Myer, Horatio

    Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Gr'st'd

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Napier, T. B.

    Cory, Clifford John

    Hodge, John

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Hogan, Michael

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Cowan, W. H.

    Holden, E. Hopkinson

    Nuttall, Harry

    Cox, Harold

    Hooper, A. G.

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

    Cremer, William Randal

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Crombie, John William

    Jenkins, J.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Crossley, William J.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Cullinan, J.

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    O'Dowd, John

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Jowett, F. W.

    O'Malley, William

    Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Delany, William

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Partington, Oswald

    Runciman, Walter

    Verney, F. W.

    Paul, Herbert

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

    Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Waring, Walter

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh Central

    Seely, Major J. B.

    Watt, H. Anderson

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Shackleton, David James

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Raphael, Herbert H.

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

    Weir, James Galloway

    Reddy, M.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Rees, J. D.

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Robertson, Sir G. Soott (Bradf'rd

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Sullivan, Donal

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

    Robinson, S.

    Summerbell, T.

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

    Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

    Rose, Charles Day

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Pease.

    Rowlands, J.

    Toulmin George

    NOES.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

    Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Fell, Arthur

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Cave, George

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

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Walrond, Hon, Lionel

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

    Claude Hay and Mr. Ashley.

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Question put, and agreed to.

    6. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £140, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st March, 1907, for Salaries and Expenses of the Crofters' Commission."
    CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid the Commission had been an exceedingly expensive one, when they remembered that the Small Holdings Commission cost comparatively a trifling sum. He had looked into the original Vote, which was for the heavy sum of £3,735, and he should like some explanation of what the extra £140 was for. It would have been very simple to have given some hint as to the exceptional circumstances which had necessitated this increase in the expenditure. He hoped the Secretary for Scotland would be able to give them more details.
    MR. COURTHOPEsaid that upon turning up the original Estimate he found
    1128
    that the amount put down for assessors was £20, and now they were being asked to provide an additional £140. Why was such a large additional sum required for this purpose.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (MR. Sinclair,)said this expenditure had been necessary because the Crofters Commission was a land court with powers of revising and fixing rents. Last year they were asked by the Congested Districts Board to fix the rents on a large estate in the island of Skye. Owing to the ill-health of the chairman the Commission had to have the assistance of two assessors in the fixing of the rents on that estate. As a rule the estimate for this work was a nominal sum of £20, but owing to exceptional circumstances this year the help of two assessors had to be obtained.
    MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid it was very unfortunate that almost every estimate should require some explanation which did not appear on the Paper. Who was

    1129
    the chairman of this Commission? Was it a fact that he was paid £2,000 a year, and that he had never attended a meeting of the Commission for three year? If he had not been attending the meetings surely he ought to surrender some part of his salary to meet this extra expenditure.
    MR. SINCLAIRsaid in order that the hon. Member should not base his remarks upon a false foundation he wished to say at once that there was no foundation whatever for the statement that the chairman of this Commission had not attended a meeting for the last three years.
    MR. T. L. CORBETTasked if the right hon. Gentleman would inform him who the chairman was, what salary he received, and how many meetings he had attended during the past three years?
    MR. SINCLAIR saidhe did not know whether this question properly arose at this stage, because the information that was being asked for had nothing to do with this extra amount. If the hon. Member would put a question to him he would furnish him with the information he required. Some of the items he had alluded to would be found in the Estimates. The salary paid to Sheriff Brand compared favourably with that of other officials doing similar work in other parts of the kingdom. It was because of the ill-health of the chairman of the Commission that the assessors were employed to fix rents in this particular portion of Scotland. If there was any other point on which hon. Members desired information he would do his best to provide it.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINagreed that £2,000 a year was not an excessive salary for the weighty and responsible duties of the chairman of this Commission. It was a class of work for which a man of high attainments, great impartiality, and good
    1130
    judgment was required—a man who would command the respect of all parties coming before his tribunal. He had no personal knowledge of the qualifications of the chairman, but he was sure he would not have been appointed unless he were a man having the requisite qualifications. It would sometimes happen that a permanent official would be absent through reasons beyond his control, and in that case it might be necessary to get others to take his place. There were three Commissioners, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could explain why the absence of the chairman necessitated the appointment of two assessors. He supposed that Sheriff Brand was the legal member of the Commission, and that the other Commissioners brought technical knowledge to bear on the cases. Were the assessors lawyers employed to advise the Commissioners who were not experts in the law, or were they agricultural experts engaged to assist those already on the Commission?
    MR. SINCLAIRsaid the other Commissioners were fully employed. One of the Commissioners was engaged in this work, and the other was fully employed elsewhere. This emergency was contemplated by the Act, because Section 17 empowered the Commissioners to employ such valuers and assessors to assist them as might be found necessary by the work. This was extra work laid upon the Commission by the fact that the Congested Districts Board purchased a large estate in Skye. It was the duty of the Commissioners to fix rents and settle crofters on the estate
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Were the assessors lawyers?
    MR. SINCLAIR: No, they were technical valuers.
    MR. MORTONsaid that as this was entirely a crofting matter he wished to say a word upon it. If he had thought

    1131
    that there was the slightest extravagance in the matter he would at once have protested. The Crofters Commission was the one board in which in the Highlands the people had any faith whatever. The crofters were greatly indebted to Sheriff Brand, the chairman of the Commission. If work in other parts of the United Kingdom was managed as economically as that in connection with the Crofters Commission it would be better for all parties. The difficulty which sometimes arose was that the bad example shown in other parts of the United Kingdom led to extravagant demands being made even in Scotland.

    CLASS IV.
    7. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £11,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907, for Grants towards the Expenditure of certain School Boards in Scotland."
    MR. DILLONsaid the total grant for primary education in Scotland was £1,972,000. They in Ireland had been pressing the Government all through last year for some addition to the Irish Education grant. The population of Ireland was practically the same as that of Scotland, and the total grant for primary education to Ireland was £1,393,000, compared with £1,972,000 to Scotland, or nearly £600,000 more to Scotland than to Ireland which was the poorer country. And yet Scotland was about to get a supplementary grant of £11,000, whereas the Treasury turned a deaf ear for years to the claim of Ireland for further assistance to relieve the present wretched state of primary education in that country.
    MR. SINCLAIRsaid he would explain how it was that this sum of £11,000
    1132
    came to be on the Supplementary Estimates. Last year in response to representations from West Ham and other districts, the Treasury agreed to place a sum on the Estimates to assist local authorities who were obliged to levy an education rate higher than 1s. 6d. When that grant was made the Scottish Office approached the Treasury to obtain a similar grant; and they succeeded in getting it, but it was then too late for it to be placed on the regular Estimates for this year, and therefore they were obliged to have it on the Supplementary Estimates.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had explained the genesis of this Vote, but he wished to ask him one or two questions. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the Treasury, previous to making the grant in England to the local education authorities, appointed a Committee to inquire into the circumstances of such districts as West Ham, and to ascertain whether the high education rate was due to the extravagance of the local authorities or to local circumstances beyond their control, and a very interesting Report had been made in regard to those districts which had made a claim on the generosity of the Treasury. Had there been any such inquiry in the case of Scotland; and if so, was it concluded so that the results might be laid before the Committee? He did not wish to criticise the right hon. Gentleman as to what amount of money had been spent in anticipation of such inquiry; but if no such inquiry had been made he thought that the Scottish Office had been remiss in this matter or the Treasury had overlooked the fact. His second question was whether this grant was on the face of it a temporary grant. Before the Committee assented to the grant they ought to know what the policy of the right hon. Gentleman was to be in regard to future years.
    *THE CHAIRMANsaid he did not think that the policy to be pursued in future years arose on this Vote.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he bowed to the Chairman's ruling, but he submitted that it was germane to this Vote to ask whether the grant was merely a sop thrown away with no permanent result in view, or only to remove a difficulty of a temporary character which had arisen.
    MR. SINCLAIRsaid that he was not sure that the Committee to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded had even begun its labours. It was not the fact that extravagance had been at work in all the districts, and it was only right that Scottish school authorities with the same heavy burdens as those in England should receive an equal amount of relief. In reply to the second point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, the Scottish Education Department were specifically informed by the Treasury that this grant was to be a grant for one year only, and they were to receive the money as such.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid he understood that the Scottish Office had not made an inquiry. The question of his right hon. friend was whether the Scottish Office had made an inquiry as the English Department had done, but the Secretary for Scotland had carefully avoided making any reply on that point. What he said was that the grant was not always given where there had been extravagance, and that the same thing might take place in England. The right hon. Gentleman justified his position by the case of West Ham and by saying that West Ham was not extravagant. Nobody said that West Ham was extravagant, but the grant was given to them because they were necessitous. The grant was meant to be given not where districts were extravagant, but where they were necessitous. The Treasury therefore tried to
    1134
    find out whether they had been extravagant, and of course if they had been both necessitous and extravagant the matter would have to be considered. There were not many parts of Scotland which were like West Ham, but the moment that West Ham or any part of this country got anything, Scottish and Irish Members pricked up their ears and said "cannot we get some of this money for Scotland and Ireland." He thought that this assistance should be given to places where it was required. This expenditure had nothing to do with Scotland or Ireland, and the fact that West Ham had had a necessitous grant was no reason why grants should be given to Scotland in places where no necessity could be shown. The first question he asked was whether there had been an inquiry, and the second was whether there were any parts of Scotland which could be considered to be in the same condition as West Ham.
    MR. SINCLAIRreplied that even thriftiness did not prevent poverty in some parts of Scotland. This Vote was spread over twenty-one counties, and there were parishes in these twenty-one counties amongst whom this Vote was divided, and the justification for the assistance given to those parishes was exactly the same ground upon which the money was given in England, namely that there was a school rate of 1s. 6d. or over. He could assure the hon. Member that careful and thorough inquiry was made in every case.
    *MR WEIR: said that when he heard the suggestion of the hon. Baronet and of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer about extravagance in Scotland he could hardly sit still in his seat. If the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had kept his eyes open he would have realised long ago that there was great poverty in the schools in Scotland, not only in Lewis but in other parts of the country. He wanted

    1135
    to know where it was alleged that there was any extravagance, because the history of these schools was a long story of poverty. He might tell the Committee that in some schools in the Island of Lewis the amount paid for lighting, cleaning, brooms, brushes, soap, etc., was not more than 30s. a year. He should like to know if the hon. Baronet or the late Chancellor of the Exchequer would like to do the work and find the soap for that sum. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had occupied the time of the House by talking absolute nonsense.
    MR. T. L. CORBETTasked if an hon. Gentleman was entitled in accordance with Parliamentary usage to charge another Member with talking absolute nonsense.
    *The CHAIRMANI did not hear what the hon. Member said. In fact I do not understand what he was alluding to, but I am afraid that during the last week I have heard the phrase used on more than one occasion.
    MR. WEIRsaid that if hon. Members would go with him to the Highlands of Scotland they would see how the schools were conducted there and would not talk of extravagance in Scottish schools. The Scottish schools were starved. They ought to have at least £25,000 instead of £11,000 for a matter of this kind.
    CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid the only difference that he could see between Scotland and West Ham was that in Scotland inquiry was not necessary. The hon. Gentleman said inquiry was not necessary because it was common knowledge in the parishes in which it occurred. It occurred
    1136
    in twenty-one parishes in Scotland and necessitous cases were common knowledge. He would like to know, if that information was not obtained by means of Commissioners, from whom it was received. He certainly thought the question of whether necessity existed did arise and he knew of no place where it arose more than in Ireland. After the claims that had been made that something should be done for the schools of Ireland and as a protest against this enormous grant to Scotland he moved the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £10,000, be granted for the said Service."—(Captain Craig.)
    MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid it was very rarely that he was able to support an appeal of the hon. Member for East Mayo, but on this occasion the thanks of all Irishmen of whatever Party were due to the hon. Member for the protest he had made on behalf of Ireland. The hon. Member had pointed out with great force that Ireland had, without counting this supplementary grant of £11,000 to Scotland, £600,000 a year loss granted to her than was granted to Scotland, while the population was the same. Having regard to the needs of Ireland in respect to education he heartily supported the Amendment. Only recently a sum was asked for the lighting and warming of the schools in Ireland and it was denied. So long as no definite promise was given that anything more would be done for Ireland—
    *The CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member was not entitled to enter into a discussion upon Ireland. He must confine himself to the Vote.
    Question put,
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 33; Noes, 229. (Division List No. 13.)

    AYES.

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

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Ashley, W. W.

    Forster, Henry William

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Beach, Hn. MichaelHugh Hicks

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Walrond, Hon, Lionel

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury S. Edm'ds

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hunt, Rowland

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Cave, George

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Captain Craig and Mr. T. L.

    Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Corbett.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend

    NOES.

    Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)

    Cullinan, J.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Dalmeny, Lord

    Higham, John Sharp

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Hodge, John

    Astbury, John Meir

    Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Hogan, Michael

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Delany, William

    Holden, E. Hopkinson

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Dillon, John

    Hudson, Walter

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Dolan, Charles Joseph

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Duffy, William J.

    Jenkins, J.

    Barnard, E. B.

    Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Jordon, Jeremiah

    Beale, W. P.

    Dunne, Major E. Martin (Wals'll

    Jowett, F. W.

    Beauchamp, E.

    Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

    Joyce, Michael

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Elibank, Master of

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Bennett, E. N.

    Erskine, David C.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Bertram, Julius

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Kincaid-Smith, Captain

    Billson, Alfred

    Everett, R. Lacey

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Brace, William

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Fenwick, Charles

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Brigg, John

    Ferens, T. R.

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

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Brooke, Stopford

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich)

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

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Levy, Maurice

    Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T.(Chesh.)

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Lough, Thomas

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Lundon, W.

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Gill, A. H.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    Lynch, H. B.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Chance, Frederick William

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs)

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon.R. R.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Gulland, John W.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

    Cleland, J. W.

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Clough, William

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    McCallum, John M.

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

    Hall, Frederick

    McCrae, George

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    McKillop, W.

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

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

    McMicking, Major G.

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Maddison, Frederick

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

    Harvey, W. E.(Derbyshire, N. E.

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Cory, Clifford John

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Massie, J.

    Cotton, Sir H, J. S.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Meagher, Michael

    Cremer, William Randal

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Meehan, Patrick A.

    Crombie, John William

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Menzies, Walter

    Crossley, William J.

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Mond, A.

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

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

    Mooney, J. J.

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

    Morrell, Philip

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd

    Tomkinson, James

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Toulmin, George

    Murphy, John

    Robinson, S.

    Verney, F. W.

    Murray, James

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Myer, Horatio

    Roe, Sir Thomas

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

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Rose, Charles Day

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Rowlands, J.

    Waring, Walter

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Runciman, Walter

    Watt, H. Anderson

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton-und.-Lyne)

    Weir, James Galloway

    O'Dowd, John

    Seaverns, J. H.

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

    O'Malley, William

    Seely, Major J. B.

    White, Luke (York, E.R.)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Shackleton, David James

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

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

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Partington, Oswald

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Paul, Herbert

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

    Williamson, A.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Wills, Arthur Walters

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

    Smyth, Thomas F. Leitrim, S.)

    Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)

    Radford, G. H.

    Soares, Ernest J.

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

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Reddy, M.

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Summerbell, T.

    Pease.

    Rees, J. D.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    And, it being after Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

    PUBLIC PETITIONS.
    Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed, to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as relate to Private Bills; and that such Committee do classify and prepare abstracts of the same, in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and do report the same from time to time to the House; and that the Reports of the Committee do set forth, in respect of each Petition, the number of signatures which are accompanied by
    1140
    addresses, and which are written on sheets headed in every case by the prayer of the Petition; provided that on every separate sheet after the first the prayer may be reproduced in print or by other mechanical process; and that such Committee have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions, as shall appear to require it; and that such Committee have power to report their opinion and observations thereupon to the House.
    The Committee was accordingly nominated of Mr. Edward Barry, Mr. Burt, Mr. Charles Craig, Mr. Ellis Griffith, Mr. Leicester Harmsworth, Mr. Henniker Heaton, Colonel Kenyon-Slaney, Mr. M'Arthur, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. Wynford Philipps, Mr. Charles Shaw, Lord Willoughby de Eresby, Mr. Wills, and Mr. Henry Joseph Wilson.
    Ordered, That three be the quorum.—(MR. Whiteley.)
    Adjourned at eleven minutes after Eleven o'clock

Preamble
The Earl of ONSLOW sat Speaker.
LUCAS PEERAGE.
Petition of Auberon Thomas Herbert, the son and heir of the Lady Florence Amabel Herbert, deceased, to His Majesty, praying His Majesty to be graciously pleased to direct a Writ of Summons to be issued to him for attendance in Parliament as Baron Lucas of Cradwell, or if it be decided that he is not entitled to such dignity under the Patent of King Charles II., to terminate in his favour the abeyance, if such be found to exist, of the Barony of Lucas of Cradwell, together with the rights, privileges, pre-eminences, immunities and advantages, and the place and precedence belonging thereto, to hold the same to him and the heirs of his body lawfully begotten and to be begotten for ever; together with His Majesty's reference thereof to this House, and the report of the Attorney-General thereon there-unto annexed; presented (by command), read, and referred to the Committee for Privileges to consider and report.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRANSVAAL.
  Report of Foreign Labour Department, Johannesburg, for 1905–1906.
  COLONIAL CONFERENCE, 1907.
  Despatch from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with enclosures, respecting the Agenda of the Colonial Conference, 1907.

  TREATY SERIES.
  No. 6. (1907). Accession of Brazil to the Geneva Convention of 22nd August, 1864 for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded in armies in the field. (26th January, 1907).
  No. 7. (1907). Supplementary Convention between the United Kingdom and the United States of America for the mutual surrender of fugitive crim-
  978
  inals; signed at London, 12th April, 1905. (Ratifications exchanged at Washington, 21st December 1906).

  INDIA (TRADE).
  Tables relating to the Trade of British India with British Possessions and Foreign Countries, 1901–1902 to 1905–1906.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
  Return for the month of December 1906.
  ARMY.
  Interim Report of War Office Committee on Provision of Officers—For services with the Regular Army in war; and for the Auxiliary Forces.
  TRADE REPORTS—ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3745 Russia (Poland and Lithuania) for 1906.

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES.
  Second Report (Northern Area) on Fishery and Hydrographical Investigations in the North Sea and adjacent waters, 1904–1905. Part I. Hydrography.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EXTRADITION ACTS, 1870 TO 1906.
  Order in Council, dated 11th February, 1907, for giving effect to a Supplementary Convention which was concluded on the 12th April, 1905, between His Majesty and the President of the United States of America, for the mutual extradition of fugitive criminals.
  EXPLOSIVES ACT, 1875.
  Order in Council, dated 11th February, 1907, amending Orders in Council of 27th November1875, relating to stores licensed for gunpowder, and for mixed explosives respectively.
  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Three Orders in Council, dated 11th February 1907, entitled: The Northern Nigeria Order in Council, 1907; The Corea Order in Council, 1907; The China and Corea (Amendment) Order in Council, 1907.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904 (URBAN DISTRICT OF CHADDERTON).
  Order made by the council of the urban district of Chadderton, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing hours of closing for certion classes of shops within the district.

  FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS ACT, 1906.
  Regulations made by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

NEW BILL.
  HOUSE OF LORDS (REFORM) BILL.
  A Bill to authorise the discontinuance in particular cases of Writs for Summons to the House of Lords, to provide for the appointment of Peers of Parliament for life, and to amend the law relating to the representation in Parliament of the Peerages of Scotland and Ireland. Was presented by the Lord Newton; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday the 5th of March. (No. 4.)

FOREIGN TRAWLERS IN THE MORAY FIRTH.
*LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGHrose to ask the Representative of the Scottish Office whether it was the case that certain persons recently convicted in the Sheriff Court at Elgin for illegal trawling in the Moray Firth, and imprisoned in default of payment of fines, had been released without the payment of the fines; and, if so, whether he could, without detriment to the public interest, give any explanation of the reasons which had led to their release; and to ask His Majesty's Government whether they would state what policy they intended to pursue in future regarding trawling in the Moray Firth.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I put down this notice last week it was entirely from a desire to gain the information which is asked for in the first two Questions on the Paper. I had then no intention of making any remarks at all on the subject. Owing, as your Lord-
980
ships are aware, to a request on the part of His Majesty's Government, I postponed the notice for a week, and I am bound to say that although a certain amount of more general interest has been aroused in the matter by this time than would have been the case last week, the first two Questions which appear on the Paper have somewhat lost their interest, because we now know, through what are described as the usual channels of information, that the individuals who form the subject of the Questions have been released from prison, and, as I understand it, without the payment of the fines in default of the payment of which they were imprisoned. I think we can also form a fairly accurate guess that their release was owing to friendly representations made by the official representatives of another Power. Since I put down the notice a copy of the local paper has been sent to me which shows that at the time of the conviction the representative of that Power attended the Court and protested against conviction, whether it was to result in the payment of a fine or in imprisonment.
In these circumstances, therefore, the real interest in the matter centres round the third Question standing in my name on the Paper, in which I ask His Majesty's Government whether they will state what policy they intend to pursue in future regarding trawling in the Moray Firth. I think it would probably be not inconvenient to your Lordships if I made a very short statement regarding the history of this matter and the reasons which have induced me to ask for this information. This is no new question. It is one which has been agitated and discussed in various phases at any time during the last fifteen or sixteen years, and as regards the main features of it there is no difference of opinion, as I understand, and certainly no difference of policy, and I believe no possible controversy between the two sides of the House or the representatives of either political party. Whether what has been done is right or wrong we are, up to quite recent times, both in it, if I may use the expression.
The Act of Parliament under which the action was taken was passed by

981
Lord Salisbury's Government in 1889. The first part of the area which was closed against trawlers inside the Moray Firth, namely, the area of the Dornoch and Cromarty firths—was closed by by-law during the tenure of office of my noble friend the late Lord Lothian, who was Secretary for Scotland up to 1892, and the larger part of the area, about which the most controversy can arise, that large portion of the Moray Firth which is outside the territorial limits, was closed under by-law during the tenure of office of Sir George Trevelly an in the autumn of 1892. Since I succeeded to the office of Secretary for Scotland in 1895 no addtion to the area closed has been made up to the present time. I found, so far as the closing of areas was concerned, the status quo which exists at the present time, and my share in the transaction was in endeavouring to administer the conditions which I found existing when I went into office, with this sole exception—I mention it so that the history may be complete—that during my tenure of office the by-law was upset on a technical point by the Court of Session, and I was responsible, under the Government of the day, for renewing it in a form which got rid of that pure technicality. I only mention this circumstance to show that my object is not to raise anything like controversy as to the merits of the closing of this area, because I believe it to be entirely justifiable on many grounds. I am not going into the reasons, because I do not know that they are challenged.
The controversy proceeds to some extent from a difference of opinion between those who are engaged in line-fishing and those who are engaged in the practice of trawling. Two of a trade, as we know, never agree, and the interests of these two classes of fishermen are to a great extent divergent; but, whatever may be said upon one side or the other of that part of the question, the real case for the closing of this area is that it can be established upon scientific evidence that there are areas inside the Moray Firth which are the breeding grounds of certain classes of fish, and for the purpose of protecting the breeding grounds of edible fish it is important that trawling during certain periods of the year should
982
not be resorted to. I personally would be inclined to go further. I am afraid there is strong ground for the assertion that the whole supply of a certain class of the most important edible fish is being greatly diminished, I will not say by trawling alone, but by superior methods of capture which have been resorted to in the last, few years. Lord Eversley, who is not here to-day, took up the case on the other side and wrote an article some years ago to prove that there was no such prima facie case as was alleged regarding the depletion of certain classes of fish. I do not want to raise that controversy upon this occasion. It is not necessary to do so, as it does not enter into the particular question which we have to look at to-night.
As I have said, there has been a prolonged agitation upon this matter. At first the opposition to the policy of the Scottish Office proceeded from those interested in trawling at Aberdeen, who, for a long time, have maintained a kind of unequal contest with the authorities. By several cases, some of them taken on appeal to the Supreme Court, it was established that in law the Fishery Board of Scotland was right, and that British subjects could not fish within the prohibited areas, and they were prevented from landing the fish at Aberdeen. The matter then assumed a different phase. Some of our English friends took up the industry, and by boats largely owned at Grimsby and elsewhere trawled in these forbidden waters. Again cases were taken to the Courts, and the validity of the by-laws and the prohibition against this class of fishing was firmly established. There was, however, no power to prevent them landing their fish at Grimsby. That has been the case up to the present time. But owing to the additions which were made to the Fishery Board's cruisers policing these waters, it became a very hazardous occupation, and the fines imposed were such as to render it not very well worth while. After that another policy was pursued. Some of the boats engaged in trawling, whether owned at Grimsby or elsewhere, I do not know, were by one means or another transferred to the flag of other countries. Some, I believe, were registered in Denmark, and others in Norway, and, for all I know,

983
elsewhere. Again a long contest in the law courts began, and was carried on from stage to stage.
Now I come to the part subsequent to my ceasing to be Secretary for Scotland. In the year 1905 a case was taken in which a trawling vessel, owned under the Norwegian flag, was accused of fishing just outside what we ordinarily would call the territorial limits but inside what is admitted by international law to be waters over which the country close to which they are has a right to exercise control. It is a rather difficult and complicated point, but I think I can make it clear to your Lordships. Across the mouths of Dornoch and Cromarty Firths is not a distance of ten miles. Under these circumstances if the territorial country closes the waters it is allowed to extend jurisdiction to three miles beyond a line drawn from headland to headland. The first case, to which I am now alluding, in 1905 was taken against a Norwegian vessel which was trawling outside the mouth of the Bay but within three miles from the vertical line across from headland to headland. The decision was appealed against, but the Court of Session upheld the conviction. In that case the argument was that the Norwegians were not parties to the North Sea Convention and that therefore they could not be prosecuted; but in that case the master was prosecuted and fined, and I believe the fine was paid.
The next step is that which brings us down almost to current history. A case was taken against a vessel, ostensibly owned under the Norwegian flag, for trawling outside the territorial waters, but inside the closed area of the Moray Firth, and the commander of the vessel was fined in the Sheriff Court. He appealed to the High Court of Justiciary, and having regard to its importance the case was heard by the whole strength of the Court, thirteen Judges sitting together. They gave their decision in July last, and it is round that decision that some of the points of difficulty arise. The point which really had to be decided by the Court on that occasion was this. The words of the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act, 1889, Section 6
984
Sub-section 3, present the point of difficulty. Therein this provision appears—
"Any person who uses any method of fishing in contravention of any enactment or of any by-law of the Fishery Board shall be liable—"
and so on. The controversy ranged round the meaning of the words "any person." The contention of the Foreign Office, as I understood it during all the time I was Secretary for Scotland, and I believe I shall not be contradicted when I say they still hold that view, is that Parliament, instead of saying "any person," ought to have said "any British subject" or "any British person." I submit that we must take the words as they stand, and if Parliament said "any person" we must, I think, believe that Parliament knew what it was doing, and that it intended to place the prohibition, not only upon British subjects, but also upon those who are not British subjects. That is the view which was taken unanimously by the thirteen Judges.
I will not weary your Lordships by many quotations. I hold in my hand a reprint of the judgments in the case in question. Lord Kyllachy, in giving his judgment, said that the Act—
"declares simply that within a precisely defined area a certain method of fishing, known as beam or otter trawling, shall not be practised."
He proceeded—
"In the first place the scheme and object of the enactment have to be considered….Accordingly it would be, I think, easier to suppose that the Legislature had reached even an erroneous conclusion as to the extent of its jurisdiction, and had legislated accordingly, than that it had resolved deliberately to impose a futile restriction upon its own countrymen and at the same time to create a hurtful monopoly in favour of foreigners."
And again, at the conclusion of his judgment, Lord Kyllachy said—
"I am prepared to consider myself bound to hold—what is sufficient to support this conviction, viz.—that upon its just construction the Act of 1889 asserts the existence, for the protective purposes to which it relates, of the jurisdiction in question, and that that is enough for us sitting here as one of His Majesty's Courts."
The individual who was the subject of that judgment was, of course, convicted; the conviction was upheld, and he either paid the fine or was imprisoned,

985
I am not sure which. That was in July last.
During the autumn other cases were taken, and a considerable number of them were tried last month in the Sheriff Court of Elgin. Those summoned were fined, the fines totalling £1,300. They did not pay and were committed to prison. We now know that the Norwegian Vice-Consul protested, and that these individuals were subsequently released. I wish to say distinctly that I make no complaint whatever of the action of Norway in this matter. I believe the Norwegians are thoroughly friendly to us. I believe they did only what we should have done under similar circumstances. But what I want to point out is this, that although these vessels are colourably Norwegian, they are registered fictitiously on the Norwegian register. I believe the ownership is British, the money which is expended in working them is British, and I think I am within absolutely what is right in saying that except for one individual on each ship there is not one person on board who is not a British subject. I venture to say that, whatever Norwegian feeling may be about the prosecution, fining, or imprisonment of Norwegian subjects, there is a strong ground for diplomatic representation that the Norwegian law should not be allowed to be used for what is really a fraud upon British jurisdiction. I hope, therefore, that diplomatic action may be taken which will lead to a better state of matters than obtains at the present moment.
What I do not understand is this—If the Scottish Office and the Government really want to stop this trawling in the closed area, why do they proceed against the one foreigner on these vessels? Why do they not proceed against the British subjects on board? That is a point which seems to me to require explanation. I have sufficient confidence in the discretion of my old Office, in the wisdom of those who are advising it, to assume that there must be some reason for prosecuting the one foreigner on these boats instead of the number of British subjects who are there. I see in his place the noble Lord, I will not
986
say who represents Grimsby in this matter, but who always represents very ably Grimsby's interests (Lord Heneage), shaking his head. He will have an opportunity of telling us what he knows, and I hope he will tell us all he knows, for I am sure he is in possession of a great deal of information that would be extremely useful to me and probably to His Majesty's Government. There is a great deal of sympathy in Grimsby with these foreigners. I noticed inthe newspapers the other day resolutions of profound sympathy with the Norwegians who had been prosecuted and put in prison. I have yet to know why there should be this philanthropic interest in Norwegian subjects at Grimsby, of all places in the world, if there was not something behind it. It may not be entirely Grimsby. Aberdeen may be in it too; but what I suggest to your Lordships is this, that when the Government, backed by Parliament and acting under the authority of Parliament, resolve, for certain purposes, to close a certain area, we are entitled to hope that evasions of this kind, whether from Grimsby, Aberdeen, or elsewhere, in the mistakenly selfish interests of one class of fishermen, will not be allowed to prevail.
I hope, as I have said, that we shall hear that friendly representations will be made to Norway to take care that something is done to prevent the registration of ships for this purpose. I suggest that one method of settling the matter without the necessity for diplomatic action at fill would be to prevent the landing in England as well as in Scotland of fish caught within prohibited areas. My case is, briefly, this. If, as I think, it is right to maintain this prohibition; if, as I think, there is a strong practical case for it, then I say it ought to be made effective. If you do not mean to make it effective, repeal it. The present state of matters seems to me to be perfectly indefensible, both in logic and for any practical purpose. I sincerely hope we shall hear from His Majesty's Government that they mean to make these restrictions effective, and will not allow any supposed interest of one class against another to interfere with what I venture to suggest is their plain duty.
*The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Fitzmaurice): My Lords, I desire, in the first place, to thank the noble Lord who has brought forward this matter, for the calm and temperate manner in which he has presented a question that excites, for natural reasons, a very great amount of feeling in different parts of the country.
In replying to the noble Lord, I feel that I am labouring under a disadvantage, because of the absence, through illness, of the Lord Chancellor, and Lord Carrington, President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, who would have taken part in the discussion. My noble friend, Lord Eversley, who took a great interest in the subject, and drew up the Report of the old Fisheries Commission of 1863, is also absent, unfortunately, for the same reason of ill-health. And may I be allowed to say that I feel that in a discussion of this kind, which involves the most difficult of all legal matters, the conflict of municipal and international law, we on this side suffer by the loss of the noble and learned Lord, whose decease we read of with such deep feelings of regret in the papers this morning.
The noble Lord opposite, who has an almost unrivalled acquaintance with the subject, owing to his long connection with Scottish administration, has justly observed that both sides of the House are, to a certain extent, equally responsible for this legislation. The fact is that these fishery statutes, and the by-laws under them, are part of a long and not, as yet, terminated controversy. As representing the Foreign Office I do not think it is desirable on my part that I should attempt to plunge into the details of that controversy. There are others, far more competent than I can be, to advise on the practical aspects. During the last few days I have heard at the Foreign Office such a number of completely contradictory statements in regard to the position of the fishing interests affected by this legislation, for instance in the case of a great fishing centre like Aberdeen, I have heard such violent statements that the town is entirely for and also entirely against trawling, that I feel that if I attempted to advise your Lordships I should be undertaking a task of the greatest rashness. I will therefore con-
988
fine myself to what may be called the defence of the action of the Foreign Office.
Early in 1906 proceedings were commenced against a Dane, master of the steam trawler "Niobe, "a vessel flying the Norwegian flag, for having trawled within the area specified in the by-law, though it was admitted that the offence took place outside the three-mile limit. The accused was convicted; he appealed, but the conviction was upheld by the High Court of Justiciary. Since this case proceedings have been taken against various other persons, including certain Norwegian and Swedish subjects, for offences against the by-law. Convictions ensued, and the offenders were condemned to pay fines. Certain of the offenders refused to pay, or were unable to pay, the fines imposed, and were in consequence imprisoned. Representations were received from the Swedish and Norwegian Ministers in London with regard to these cases, and the Crown acting on the advice and recommendation of the Secretary for Scotland, remitted the remaining portion of the sentence of imprisonment and ordered the release of the men. The further question of the repayment of the fines which had been paid is under the consideration of the Government. I believe that any feeling on the subject which has been aroused in Scotland is due to the fact that it is thought that the trawlers were really owned by British subjects at Grimsby, and that; the adoption of the Norwegian flag was a device to evade the Scottish Fishery Regulations. I may, however, point out that the transfer of these vessels to the Norwegian flag was, as far as could be ascertained, performed in a perfectly regular manner, and that the facts, from the point of view of the Norwegian Government, were that Norwegian subjects fishing in extraterritorial waters, as they had a right to do, were fined and imprisoned by the authorities of a friendly Power. I have been asked to state whether proceedings were actually taken against a vessel as distinguished from an individual. In one case a trawler was arrested, the "Sando, "and brought into port by the instructions of Captain Wright, of the "Freya," but almost as soon as the trawler arrived Captain Wright received a telegram in

989
reply from the Fishery Board instructing him to allow the master and the boat to go at once, instructions which were carried out. It will be seen, therefore, that in dealing with this matter we are limited entirely to the case of proceedings against persons.
I pass to the position of the Foreign Office. The jurisdiction which is exercised by a State over its merchant or trading vessels upon the high seas is conceded to it in virtue of its ownership of them as property in a place where no local jurisdiction exists. Therefore, the first thing that, in these cases, the Foreign Office has to ask is, Was there or was there not, territorial jurisdiction in the place where the alleged events occurred? In regard to that I can certainly say that according to the views hitherto accepted by all the Departments of the Government chiefly concerned—the Foreign Office, the Admiralty, the Colonial Office, the Board of Trade, and the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries—and apart from the provisions of special treaties, such as, for instance, the North Sea Convention, within the limits to which that instrument applies, territorial waters are:—First, the waters which extend from the coastline of any part of the territory of a State to three miles from the low-water mark of such coastline; secondly, the waters of bays the entrance to which is not more than six miles in width, and of which the entire land boundary forms part of the territory of a State. By custom however and by Treaty and in special convention the six-mile limit has frequently been extended to more than six miles.
The Foreign Office of late years, as your Lordships are aware, has been involved in many important controversies where these questions have been raised—there was the famous decision of the High Court in the case of the "Franconia, "the controversy with Denmark with regard to the fishing rights in the waters of Iceland, and last, but not least famous, the Behring Sea Arbitration. In all these cases the contention of the Foreign Office has been what I have described.
At the time of the Behring Sea Arbitration this fishery controversy had already begun, and therefore it was not unnatural that those who were arguing the case of
990
the United States should take advantage of what they considered might be a damaging admission or confession on our part in regard to the Herring Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1889. Reference was expressly made to the fact that this Act had been made applicable within a line drawn from Duncansby Head to Rattray Point, and that "any person" who violated it was liable to a penalty. From this it was sought to be argued that the application of the Act beyond the three-mile limit was not therefore limited to British subjects. In the British argument it was pointed out in reply that "any person" was an expression commonly used in British statutes dealing with crimes and misdemeanours, and was never applied except to persons owing obedience to the British Parliament. The distinguished lawyers representing Great Britain stated that—
"Both in the case of Colonial laws and in the case of English laws the words 'any person' mean 'any person subject to the jurisdiction of the Legislature passing such laws.'"
That is "subject" in accordance with the principles of international and constitutional law.
I hope your Lordships will understand that I am not presuming for a moment to question the decision arrived at by the High Court of Justiciary considered as a matter of dry law. Indeed, I do not see how the Court could have arrived at any other decision, since it was bound to administer the law as laid down in an Act of Parliament without reference to any external considerations whatever. If I may venture to say so, the Foreign Office would, I think, have acted very unwisely if it had appeared in this controversy to question the decision of a strong Court like this, presided over by so able and accomplished a Judge as the Lord Justice-General.
The principle on which all the judgments proceeded was that, as Parliament had legislated in a definite manner for all persons within a defined area, Parliament must be presumed to have satisfied itself of its power and right to do so before passing the enactment. The passages in the judgments that deal with the territorially of the Firth were apparently introduced to rebut the appellants' contentions that Parliament could not have meant the by-law to apply

991
to foreigners, because the waters were not territorial. The Court, in effect, said, "It is not certain that the entire Firth is not territorial, and as the appellants' construction would reduce the enactment to impotence, we shall not follow it." There is absolutely nothing to justify the idea that there has been a collision of opinion between the Foreign Office and the highest Court of law in Scotland. The Judges while bound for the reasons stated to arrive at the decision they did, clearly saw that there was an international aspect to this question which a Court of law could not deal with under municipal law, but which must be left to the Foreign Office to deal with through the ordinary methods of diplomacy.
Then I have been asked by the noble Lord to state what is the present intention of His Majesty's Government. On behalf of the Scottish Office I am allowed to say that this matter is continuing to receive the attention of the Secretary for Scotland, and that, pending the settlement of the existing intricate diplomatic position, so far as the subjects of Foreign Powers are concerned, he deems it necessary to revise the instructions under which the cruisers are now acting. The principal instruction, therefore, will, in future, run as follows—
"When the officer commanding a cruiser detects a trawler under a foreign flag trawling within the waters of the Moray Firth, he is to obtain full information as to the operations of the trawler; such information to include all the facts that would be necessary for successful prosecution in the case of a British trawler detected under like circumstances, with this addition, that every person on the vessel, of whatever rank, who uses or assists in the use and the method of fishing known as beam or otter trawling should be included in the report, with a view to his individual prosecution."
It is MR. Sinclair's intention, as advised, to take proceedings against all British subjects who can be proved to have acted in contravention of the by-law in any capacity while serving in vessels flying the Norwegian flag. Complaints will, of course, only be served on such persons when in British jurisdiction. That is the reply to the first question of the noble Lord.
The noble Lord further asked if there was any intention to extend the prohibition in force in Scotland against selling fish caught in this manner to England also. I have reason to believe that it is in contemplation that some such
992
measure should be extended, although the manner in which it will be done must be matter for further consideration. It is the desire of the Secretary for Scotland that this feeling which has been excited should be set at rest. Norway, we must bear in mind, is the latest addition to the family of nations of Europe She is bound to this country also by special ties of recent origin. Although she has behind her the great traditions of her naval history, she is none the less new in her established position. That being so, noble Lords will sympathise with the feeling of the Secretary of State that it would hardly have been very creditable to us, if in a matter of this kind, where undoubtedly our diplomatic position in regard to the arrest of these men was to say the least very doubtful, we had appeared to single out Norway at this moment as the Power at whose expense we were to raise the controversy. This feeling will be better appreciated when I state that the whole matter might be regulated by a Convention with Norway in regard to these extra-territorial waters.
Throughout this controversy Norway has never, so far as I am aware, indicated that she would meet any reasonable proposal of this kind with an absolute non possumus. That was an additional reason why the Foreign Office and the Secretary of State felt that it was desirable to move delicately in this matter. In this question of an extension of the territorial waters by a Convention with Norway, the Foreign Office would on general grounds have to move very carefully. The question raises many considerations affecting other interests and other departments than that which I represent; and I must not be understood as giving any pledge on behalf of the Government, the matter being one involving numerous interests other than the fishing interests immediately concerned, as well as the possible claims of other Powers besides Norway. Any Convention might—I do not say that it would—give rise to claims of reciprocity on the part of other countries, which might exclude British trawlers from other and similar areas in the neighbourhood of foreign coasts which are at present open to the exercise of the industry of British fishermen.
From the point of view of the Scottish Office, the interests of the inshore Scottish

993
fisheries are no doubt, and quite rightly, the first consideration. But from the point of view of the Imperial and foreign interests of this country, there are other and larger considerations which would have to be carefully regarded—not only the interests of the whole body of our fishermen in foreign waters and on the high seas, but also the numerous other interests that are connected with, and involved in, matters appertaining to the doctrines which bear on the limits of territorial waters. They are almost infinite in their variety and in their ramifications. Compared with the immediate fishing interests concerned, which not unnaturally loom so largely in the eyes of those who ply their industry on the high seas in circumstances of great difficulty, these national and Imperial interests are as a round shot to a grain of sand.
Lord HENEAGE: My Lords, after the challenge which has been thrown out by the noble Lord who raised this question this evening, I think your Lordships will not be surprised if I ask your indulgence while I make a few observations on the subject. Before I proceed to the important question of the interests of the great fishing industry of this country, which I have the honour to represent as president of the National Sea Fisheries Association, I should like to make one or two remarks with regard to certain statements made by Lord Balfour, which, I think, are not altogether accurate.
In the first place, my noble friend led the House to believe that a large number of these vessels were practically British vessels sailing under the Norwegian flag. I must remind my noble friend that when he was Secretary for Scotland he made this very statement to me and complained about it, and I then told him that so long as I was President of the Association I would never be a party to defending any British vessels sailing under a foreign flag, but that at the same time we should do all we could to get rid of the obnoxious and unfair restrictions imposed by Scottish law in the Moray Firth. At that time there was a fleet of twenty-two vessels sailing under the Norwegian flag. They were, as my noble friend has said, practically British vessels. Of those vessels four-
994
teen have been re-registered under the British flag, six have been made over unconditionally to the Norwegians, and what has become of the other two I cannot tell, but they are not fishing anywhere that I know of. I hope that statement will remove the "bogey" of British vessels under the Norwegian flag. I am not aware at the present moment of a single vessel owned by Britishers, and entirely maintained by British money, which is sailing under the Norwegian flag.
My noble friend also made the statement that in these cases the foreigner on the vessel was always taken up and never an Englishman. I was rather surprised that while my noble friend referred so continually to the Norwegian vessels dealt with at Elgin he never said one word about the two men who were taken off two vessels and convicted at Wick. They all come under the same category and the same law. I have a description of those two vessels. The first was owned entirely by Norwegians and chartered by a Danish company. It had a crew of five Danes and five Norwegians, and in that case they naturally took up a Dane. They did not, however, take up the skipper but the first fisherman; why they took him I have never been able to find out. The second vessel was entirely owned by Norwegians, but there was one Englishman on board and he was taken up and convicted. As far as I know, he was the only Englishman on that vessel. He was not the skipper but the first fisherman. With regard to the first of these two vessels the fine has been remitted and the man set free on the application of the Norwegian Government, but in the other case the fine had been paid, and whether it has been restored or not I am unable to say.
I have been connected for nearly a quarter of a century with this industry, and during the whole of that time I think every case of complaint has gone through me to the Foreign Office, and I have been in communication with Foreign Ministers in regard to it; but I have never seen a plea set up by a foreign country that they wanted to extend the three-mile limit. The chief point has been whether the vessel, when taken up by the cruiser, was in the three-mile limit or not. That was the first question, and the second was whether the trawl

995
was up or down; but since the "Lady Godiva" case the question of the three-mile limit has never been raised.
The noble Lord, in bringing forward this question, told us a great deal about Scottish by-laws and the interests of the long-shore fishermen of the Moray Firth, but he did not say one word as to how the present system of international law and comity between the nations of Europe has been brought about and upheld. In 1882 the North Sea Convention was signed by all the maritime Powers of Europe except Norway, and in the following year the Sea Fisheries Act was passed by the British Parliament confirming the North Sea Convention and in its schedule the Convention itself. Article II. of that Convention defines the territorial waters as within three miles from low watermark along the whole extent of the respective countries as well as of the islands and banks. In Article III. the limits of the North Sea are definitely set forth, and in Article XXXI. it is stated that the Convention is to remain in force for five years and then from year to year, unless one of the signatory Powers shall give notice of a desire to withdraw, and it shall then be continued between the remaining Powers.
In 1888 an International Conference was held in London, at which most of the maritime Powers round the North Sea were represented. The year before that the Royal Commission had reported on the subject of trawling, and that Report was taken into consideration. In the Report the Commission recommended no legislation except within the territorial limits of three miles, and they advised that powers should be given to fishery authorities to make by-laws for the regulation and supervision of steam-trawlingor any other mode of fishing within the three-mile territorial waters. The late Lord Londes borough moved a Resolution in accordance with the recommendation of the Report. It was supported by representatives of Grimsby and Hull, and by three representatives of Scotland—Colonel Malcolm, the Hon. R. Bruce, and MR. H. Anstruther. They were all specific on the point that the regulations to be made against trawling should be within the three-mile limits of the territorial water only.
In 1889 the Secretary for Scotland brought in a Bill to prevent trawling by
996
closing the whole of the territorial waters, and on the Second Reading of the Bill in this House he urged that it should be passed without Amendment, stating that it simply and entirely dealt with the waters within the three-mile limit. The Bill was passed. Then, as has been stated by my noble friend, the by-law referred to was made; it was in September, 1892. I have never been able to understand how that by-law could be made, because it enclosed waters outside the three-mile limit. In 1895 the Scottish Office brought in the Scottish Fisheries Regulation Bill. When that measure was under discussion Lord Salisbury repudiated the idea that the Act of 1889 had anything to do with waters outside the three-mile limit, and he maintained the principle of the present International law as set out in the North Sea Convention. Lord Salisbury held that view very strongly, and said there was nothing in the Scottish Fisheries Regulation Bill to prevent there being a stretch of sea in which the foreigner might trawl and the Englishman might not trawl, thereby foreseeing the exact state of things which has since happened.
My noble friend, Lord Balfour, has said that we at Grimsby, and the fishing trade generally, approve of the action of the Government. We do. But we approve of it not for any selfish reason so far as the Moray Firth is concerned. That is an insignificant part of the question. The fishermen of Hull, Grimsby, and Aberdeen go much further afield. What we feel is that if the first maritime nation in the world is to begin playing pranks with international legisla-lationthere may be retaliation and we should have difficulties when fishing outside the three-mile limits in the neighbourhood of another territory. In 1902, when Lord Lansdowne was Foreign Secretary, the question arose with regard to water outside the three-mile limit around Iceland. The Icelandic local Parliament or council brought forward a law extending the three-mile limit to seven miles round their coast. As soon as this came to the knowledge of the National Sea Fisheries Association we made a representation to the noble Marquess. We pointed out what a serious effect this would have on the fishing interests of

997
this country and that it was entirely opposed to the North Sea Convention and to International law. On the representation of the Foreign Office the Danish Government took action and that law was prevented from coming into operation.
Then I come to another point in the speech of my noble friend—the question of closing British ports to foreign vessels. During the whole twenty years I have been connected with the sea-fishing industry the one great thing we have had in view has been to induce foreign countries to show that hospitality to our vessels in distress and to give us those facilities for the sale of our fish in their ports which are extended to their ships in our ports; and if any attempt is made to close the ports of either Grimsby or Hull to foreign vessels and to deny to them the hospitality which we receive in foreign ports, every opposition that the fishing industry can give will be given to it. The whole of the fishing industry of Great Britain view with the greatest consternation what they consider to be a gross breach of international law by the Scottish authorities, and they rejoice that His Majesty's Government have faithfully carried out the obligations of Great Britain as a signatory to the North Sea Convention and upheld the honour and integrity of this country.
Lord ASHBOURNE: My Lords, this question is one requiring close attention. It cannot be put aside lightly and without much thought, because it is obvious, from the statements which have been made to-day, that it is complicated and involved and demands careful examination in order to arrive at a solution which would be accepted as wise and reasonable. The question presented to the consideration of the Government is, what is to be their attitude, having regard to the Statute of 1889, the by-laws made under it, and the decisions given with high authority by the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland as lately as July last? I am not sufficiently acquainted with the laws under which the Scottish Court was proceeding to know whether that decision was final, or whether the matter can be brought to your Lordships' House on appeal.
*LORD FITZMAURICE: There can be no appeal in the true legal sense, but it is
998
possible that it could come under the jurisdiction of the Privy Council.
Lord ASHBOURNE: It is obviously a decision entitled to the most careful consideration on account of the authority of the distinguished Judges who composed the Court. I join with the noble Lord the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs in regretting the absence of the Lord Chancellor, and in deploring the death of Lord Davey, a very eminent and distinguished lawyer, in whom the whole House as well as his legal colleagues recognised a great jurist. Those associated with him in the judicial work of the House will long deplore his loss, as I am sure will the rest of the House and the whole country.
I gather that on the subject before the House the views of His Majesty's Government are in conflict with the conclusion arrived at by the Scottish Judges, and that the noble Lord and the Scottish Office are closely considering whether they will make new regulations which will endeavour to do justice with regard to this rather difficult matter, as between Norwegians and British subjects. I understand that communications will be made to the Norwegian Government in reference to the matter having regard to the way in which consideration has been shown to Norwegian subjects. No one in the House would suggest that anything but such consideration should be shown. But of course that does not end the matter, and we come back to the question how to make this consideration and the exercise of the prerogative consistent with the Act of 1889, with the by-laws made under it, and the decisions of the Courts. As I understand, the subject is engaging the close attention of the Scottish Office with the hope to mitigate or remove difficulties in the future, and in the circumstances, before expressing further views, it would, I think, be wise to await further information.
*LORD REAY: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down that we shall do well to await the further consideration of this very complex and intricate question. It seems to me impossible to admit that foreigners have rights of fishing recognised by international law which cannot be exercised by our own subjects on

999
account of the law to which they are subject as interpreted by the Scottish Judges. But, as regards the position taken up by the Foreign Office and so clearly explained to-night in the speech of my noble friend the Under-Secretary, I agree that it is of the utmost importance that the liberty to fish outside the three-mile limit should not be interfered with, unless the consent has been obtained of the Powers concerned. As the noble Lord stated, this is an Imperial interest and one which we should carefully guard and maintain. It is obvious that any extension of jurisdiction outside those limits might be attended with very serious results to ourselves as a maritime nation and to our fishermen. I endorse what my noble friend has said in regard to our vindication of liberty on the high seas. As regards the importance of protecting the breeding ground, to which allusion was made, that obviously is a question which should be settled, not only by municipal legislation, but by international arrangement. With regard to negotiations with Norway, it should not be forgotten that Norway and Sweden have by their legislation extended the territorial waters' limit beyond three miles to four miles. When my noble friend approaches the Norwegian Government on the subject I think that argument may be used effectively in favour of a further arrangement. But, in any case, I think the greatest caution in this matter must be observed. These are not merely local interests in which Aberdeen and Grimsby are concerned, but international interests which have a wider and far-reaching importance for a great industry; and I should deprecate any attempt to encroach on the liberty of the high seas beyond the three-mile limit except by an international convention such as the North Sea Convention. I am quite sure that no difficulty will be experienced in making this question plain to those who are interested in it in Scotland which has always shown a great respect for the principles of international law on which the "Scot abroad" has to rely.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of Ripon): My noble friend Lord Stanmore has been obliged to leave the House, and on his behalf I beg to move,
1000
with one alteration, the Motion which stands in his name. I am grieved to say that it is necessary to delete the name of my noble friend the Lord Steward (the Earl of Liverpool), whose state of health makes it impossible for him to attend the meetings of the Committee.
Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to continue the inquiry with respect to the unfinished condition of the rooms in the Palace of Westminster appropriated to the service of this House and their approaches, and that the Lords following be named of the Committee:—M. Cholmondeley, E. Carlisle, E. Brownlow, E. Lytton, E. Plymouth, L. Denman, L. Stanmore."—(The Marquess of Ripon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to
The Committee to meet on Wednesday next at Eleven o'clock, and to appoint their own Chairman.
House adjourned at ten minutes past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.